On Theory

[archimage_a]

I am pro-life but I would not actively stop someone from committing the act, so in a way I am also pro-choice. I would strongly argue against it, as I now plan to.

 

 

 

If a woman were to be raped for example, and then became pregnant as a result, she may wish to abort the child. Quite a lot of right-wing Christians would demand that she keep it and give birth to that child. Now, I know that in no way does that unborn child bear any guilt for what happened to its mother, BUT the mother will always look at her child knowing how it came about. This is a burden that I feel it is up to the mother to choose to take. Also, eventually this child will ask about its heritage, does the mother tell the child? How will the child react?

 

 

 

Of course the simple alternative is another A word... Adoption, which requires no killing of any kind. Ok, I agree that pregnancy can be a traumatic experience, but there is no evidence to say that the child does not feel pain from being aborted. How will the child react to being aborted? It will die. That is surely better than finding out your father was a rapist, especially when you consider how easy lying is in todays age 'Oh yes, your father died at sea, tragic fishing accident'.

 

I am not saying it is right, personally I would keep the child if I could give birth(I hope I would anyway), but I cannot expect everyone to share my views and so it is my responsibility to appeal to the widest number of people without crossing the terrible line.

 

 

 

If a man was raped and the rapist decided to keep the child then where does the church stand on that? (Serious question)

 

 

 

There are numerous other situations: accidental death in the case of self-defence, the right to commit suicide in the face of terminal illness, abortion of a severely disabled unborn child, sex before marriage, anything gay (religious groups seem to have a lot of problems relating to consensual sex) etc.

 

A) Slippery slope argument: Accidental death becomes engineered murder. Terminal illness euthanasia becomes 'I can't play football again, so I had to end my life'. Severely disabled becomes black, gay, girl, ect. Sex before marriage becomes pregnancy and broken families. Anything gay becomes bestiality, sex with children, sex with the bible.

 

B) Most of it does make sense: Prolonging life, Allowing the miracles to happen and producing happy children.

 

 

 

 

 

Being moral and objective doesn't imply being inflexible or even authoritarian

 

I was saying the opposite. I would hardly present an argument which has no grounding in what has been written by other people and then attack it in order to make myself look better.

 

If I did I would not call myself tyrannical at the end. :roll:

 

 

 

Probably my fault for not being clear.

 

 

 

it at the very least creates encourages personal freedom.

 

The issue being that it does so without direction. Ie 'You can do anything you want' 'Oh wait you shouldn't have done that, off to prison with you.'

 

Personal freedom is only good when it is set in the context to social freedom and cohesion.

 

 

 

wow, you actually are justifying marital rape

 

It is not hard. Marriage=Lawful Sex. Pretty much a no-brainer.

 

 

 

you will never have justice if you refuse to allow it.

 

Justice is all very well and good, but as Gerald Ford showed when he pardoned Nixon, sometimes you have to ignore justice in terms of doing what is best for the system.

 

Added to that RESPONSIBILITY. Take responsibility and act upon your commitments.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, unlike many religious people seem to think, moral are not fixed, nor are they black and white.

 

 

 

Morals ARE black and white. If something is wrong in one situation it is wrong in all situations. What changes is the level of justification that can be used.

 

 

 

Abortion is (in my opinion) inherently wrong. However in some circumstances it is justified.

 

Abortion because the baby is already dead is fully justified.

 

Abortion because the baby will definitely die before it comes to term is almost fully justified (since it is not dead yet)

 

Abortion because the baby will be gay/black/female is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will require you assistance while growing up is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will die within a year of birth is semi-justifiable. (While they can change things for the good they can also be highly traumatic so you have to be reasonable.)

 

Abortion because the baby will die somewhere between age 5 and age 8 is not justifiable, even in that short time they can change people's lives.

[sphinxor86]

 

Abortion is (in my opinion) inherently wrong. However in some circumstances it is justified.

 

Abortion because the baby is already dead is fully justified.

 

Abortion because the baby will definitely die before it comes to term is almost fully justified (since it is not dead yet)

 

Abortion because the baby will be gay/black/female is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will require you assistance while growing up is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will die within a year of birth is semi-justifiable. (While they can change things for the good they can also be highly traumatic so you have to be reasonable.)

 

Abortion because the baby will die somewhere between age 5 and age 8 is not justifiable, even in that short time they can change people's lives.

 

 

 

You've just made concessions. If you believed abortion was morally 'black' and always wrong, you'd never make concessions, so clearly even you are willing to blur the edges.

[Alg]

 

Abortion is (in my opinion) inherently wrong. However in some circumstances it is justified.

 

Abortion because the baby is already dead is fully justified.

 

Abortion because the baby will definitely die before it comes to term is almost fully justified (since it is not dead yet)

 

Abortion because the baby will be gay/black/female is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will require you assistance while growing up is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will die within a year of birth is semi-justifiable. (While they can change things for the good they can also be highly traumatic so you have to be reasonable.)

 

Abortion because the baby will die somewhere between age 5 and age 8 is not justifiable, even in that short time they can change people's lives.

 

 

 

You've just made concessions. If you believed abortion was morally 'black' and always wrong, you'd never make concessions, so clearly even you are willing to blur the edges.

 

That even shows that it isn't black and white as a whole. Black and white is yes or no, this is yes if x, no if y.

[mmmcannibalism]

I am not saying it is right, personally I would keep the child if I could give birth(I hope I would anyway), but I cannot expect everyone to share my views and so it is my responsibility to appeal to the widest number of people without crossing the terrible line.

 

 

 

If a man was raped and the rapist decided to keep the child then where does the church stand on that? (Serious question)

 

 

 

I generally agree

 

 

 

A) Slippery slope argument: Accidental death becomes engineered murder. Terminal illness euthanasia becomes 'I can't play football again, so I had to end my life'. Severely disabled becomes black, gay, girl, ect. Sex before marriage becomes pregnancy and broken families. Anything gay becomes bestiality, sex with children, sex with the bible.

 

B) Most of it does make sense: Prolonging life, Allowing the miracles to happen and producing happy children.

 

 

 

Engineered murder by self defense...

 

So what if someone wants to kill themselves because they can't play football, its their life.

 

Severly disabled is always intended to mean a horribly dipilitating condition that would make life arguably worse then death.

 

the gay one--I like how your response to an alleged slipperly slope is a horrid strawman

 

 

 

The issue being that it does so without direction. Ie 'You can do anything you want' 'Oh wait you shouldn't have done that, off to prison with you.'

 

Personal freedom is only good when it is set in the context to social freedom and cohesion.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean it can't work

 

 

 

It is not hard. Marriage=Lawful Sex. Pretty much a no-brainer.

 

 

 

Marriage is a lawful contract connecting the assets of party a and party b; marital rape would be domestic abuse which is wrong for quite a few reasons.

 

 

 

Justice is all very well and good, but as Gerald Ford showed when he pardoned Nixon, sometimes you have to ignore justice in terms of doing what is best for the system.

 

Added to that RESPONSIBILITY. Take responsibility and act upon your commitments.

 

 

 

Justice doesn't mean following a strict set of laws to the letter in all circumstances. Justice is following the rule of law but understanding when common sense is more important to do what is best for everyone. A good example is when an archaic law (say kissing in public) is ignored by a judge because its hasn't been used for a century and its obvious noone would approve of it now.

 

 

 

Morals ARE black and white. If something is wrong in one situation it is wrong in all situations. What changes is the level of justification that can be used.

 

 

 

Abortion is (in my opinion) inherently wrong. However in some circumstances it is justified.

 

Abortion because the baby is already dead is fully justified.

 

Abortion because the baby will definitely die before it comes to term is almost fully justified (since it is not dead yet)

 

Abortion because the baby will be gay/black/female is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will require you assistance while growing up is not justifiable.

 

Abortion because the baby will die within a year of birth is semi-justifiable. (While they can change things for the good they can also be highly traumatic so you have to be reasonable.)

 

Abortion because the baby will die somewhere between age 5 and age 8 is not justifiable, even in that short time they can change people's lives.

 

 

 

For being open minded, you sure have a long highly specific list of what is right and wrong. I actually agree with you on all of those but the last and the statement it is inherently wrong.

 

 

 

Morality is never going to be black and white; unless we are going to be painfully specific and say (it is definetely wrong to kill someone who you dont know in cold blood just because you feel like it) which is hardly a general statement on morality. We can say murder or killing is wrong and then define it, but it will still leave trouble when we run into something like self defense.

[archimage_a]

You've just made concessions. If you believed abortion was morally 'black' and always wrong, you'd never make concessions, so clearly even you are willing to blur the edges.

 

Hardly. Murder is wrong, but murder in the defence of yourself can be justifed. It doesn't detract from the murder, which is wrong, but it does give justification to the action.

 

 

 

Ask yourself this...If you killed someone would you feel bad about it? If you killed someone in defence would you still feel bad about it?

 

For me the answer would be yes in both cases, but the later has a mitigating circumstance which I hope would let me live with myself.

 

 

 

Abortion, to me, is similar. Although the act is always wrong there are circumstances where I could (I think) forgive someone for doing it to my child.

 

While I would never do it personally...a bit like homosexuality for most people, they don't have a problem with it, so long as conditions are met and they are not forced to do it.

 

 

 

That even shows that it isn't black and white as a whole. Black and white is yes or no, this is yes if x, no if y.

 

 

 

You are getting morality confused with sensibility. Morality is a code of guidelines to live by, sensibility is applying them sensibly. Being moral is the BEST course of action IF everyone follows it, until such a time it can be moderated to fit individuals who are not neccessarily moral.

 

 

 

 

 

Engineered murder by self defense...

 

 

 

I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the f'in arms; you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the [cabbage] out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet. Pick it up. I don't wanna pick it up, mister, you'll shoot me. Pick up the gun. Mister, I don't want no trouble, I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister. Pick up the gun. The sheepherder picks up the gun, three shots ring out. You all saw him, he had a gun.

 

~ Bill Hicks

 

 

 

Of course in a less hollywood style...You walk around with money hanging out of your back pocket and a tyre iron up your sleeve.

 

 

 

So what if someone wants to kill themselves because they can't play football, its their life.

 

The point is that this person has had thousands of pounds invested in them, thousands of hours of love and attention and respect. Now, without even considering the rest of their life they want to destroy it.

 

 

 

On the surface, I once bought a forest and made it thrive. The Parasites claimed that the land belonged to God, and demanded that I establish a public park there. Why? So the rabble could stand slack-jawed under the canopy and pretend that it was paradise earned. When Congress moved to nationalize my forest, I burnt it to the ground.

 

-Ryan

 

 

 

Is it right to destroy something just because you cannot have it the way you want it?

 

 

 

Severly disabled is always intended to mean a horribly dipilitating condition that would make life arguably worse then death.

 

 

 

Abortion was always intended to be a last resort and to have two doctors to check each others morality to make sure they weren't personally engaged in the woman's plight but were acting in the best medical sense.

 

Now we live in a world where it is almost commonplace, like going to the dentist.

 

 

 

Furthermore it has already been argued that we do know what the future holds for us. Killing someone because it looks inevitable that they will die painfully is probably merciful, but at the same time I find it abhorant.

 

 

 

the gay one--I like how your response to an alleged slipperly slope is a horrid strawman

 

Hardly. Once I began to accept that sex wasn't totally evil/wrong it was not hard to see that, in most cases, any form of sex is right(Though not personally appealing).

 

It is not my problem with sex I am refering to, but to the right wing people who see people like me proving their argument that if you are willing to accept one form of degeneracy you are willing to accept them all.

 

 

 

I will agree that I am casting gay people in the same role as many people that you may well personally have problem with...but these are not my views but the views of people who do case gay people in the same catagory.

 

It would be similar to...say you allowing a man or woman to come to your house each week to have sex with your son or daughter.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean it can't work

 

The way the world is means it can't work.

 

 

 

I am with you in saying it is a wonderful thing, but I have accepted that it has failed.

 

 

 

Marriage is a lawful contract connecting the assets of party a and party b; marital rape would be domestic abuse which is wrong for quite a few reasons.

 

Wrong.

 

Marriage is a lawful contract which makes it ok for two people, of opposing genders, to have sex in order to have children. In more recent times the 'to have children bit' is largely missing.

 

Marital rape, as I have said before usually involves domestic abuse which IS wrong, but the act itself is not wrong.

 

 

 

If you wish to argue this then please present your arguments.

 

 

 

Justice doesn't mean following a strict set of laws to the letter in all circumstances. Justice is following the rule of law but understanding when common sense is more important to do what is best for everyone. A good example is when an archaic law (say kissing in public) is ignored by a judge because its hasn't been used for a century and its obvious noone would approve of it now.

 

 

 

Surely that is proof that justice is flawed...if there are laws which people ignore then what is to stop them ignoring other laws?

 

This is only mildly related but still: Take underage smoking for instance... If someone starts at 13 then they are going to be consistantly breaking the law until they are 18(in this country). It is common sense to ignore the law because the person needs to smoke or they will suffer, but that doesn't stop the law being degraded in their eyes, opening the door for other small crimes.

 

 

 

I am not saying that smoking leads to armed robbery, but it does (talking to people, again) lead to people seeing the law as optional and 'only wrong if you get caught'. From that it is a small step to embezzelment (Again experiance tells me it happens) or other minor crimes like petty theft, shoplifting...all the things that young people are accused of doing.

 

 

 

Just to clarify I am not saying that it is entirely the fault of lighting up once when someone was 13, I am saying that once you break one law the next law becomes easier to break... and with smoking, drinking, sex or drugs, there is an incentive to break the law over and over.

 

 

 

For being open minded, you sure have a long highly specific list of what is right and wrong.

 

 

 

...Being open minded means you are willing to talk and listen and accept that other people have different view points to you. It does not mean you do not have view points of your own. I have carefully built up a list, over numerous conversations, of things I believe.

 

I respect that people have other opinions and am more than happy to listen to them, but these are my opinions and this is how I would live my life.

 

 

 

I actually agree with you on all of those but the last and the statement it is inherently wrong

 

Care to elaborate?

 

 

 

We can say murder or killing is wrong and then define it, but it will still leave trouble when we run into something like self defense.

 

 

 

I guess I just see things in black and white because I see things relative to the amount of damage they cause. Killing is always a dark mark, but it is better one dark mark than several.

 

 

 

See life as a piece of white paper. Ever action which leads to suffering is a black mark on the paper. Good actions make the page shine brighter but do not diminish the black marks. Time dilutes the marks and dulls the shine.

 

While one spot stands out, the more you have the less they stand out individually.

 

 

 

The moral individual has no black marks...but probably a shorter life. The sensible individual has some black marks, all of which stand boldly out and are lessons from the past. While the immoral individual has little concern for suffering because another black mark makes little difference.

 

Personally? Sensible but aspire to the unachievable goal of being moral.

[mmmcannibalism]

I think we are defining a lot of things very differently

 

 

 

for instance, you consider things black and white but then say something wrong can be justified.

 

 

 

I and a few others consider nothing black and white because in some cases its justified.

 

 

 

On the abortion one

 

 

 

I don't consider it inherently wrong(similair to the defining) because I consider it justifiable in many circumstances. I think abortion solely for conveinence is always wrong but in the case of something like severe deformity I consider it justified.

 

 

 

I can't get my chat box at bottom to open to get quotes so I can't respond to anything else specific right now.

[sphinxor86]

I'd go further, I think abortion for convenience is unpleasant but up to the woman to decide.

 

 

 

The alternative is the woman has a baby that she neither wants and may never love, this could easily lead to neglect/child abuse. It may destitute the mother/family.

 

The child may be put up for adoption, and then try to trace its birth mother, discovering the crushing truth that it is not wanted.

 

 

 

I'd prefer women to be more responsible and take preventative measures so as to not get pregnant in the first place, failing that I'd prefer for them to face up to their carelessness and have that baby. But at the end of the day, I'd like to think its the mother's right to choose, no matter what *my* opinions are.

[archimage_a]

Its amazing how we all basically agree and yet the argument is much more heated than if one person had actually advocating that Abortion was always right. :roll:

 

 

 

The child may be put up for adoption, and then try to trace its birth mother, discovering the crushing truth that it is not wanted.

 

Or the Child may grow up to be the next Hawking and not be too bothered about its mother. We can't predict the future, and this is one incident in a life full of millions...

[sphinxor86]

 

 

 

The child may be put up for adoption, and then try to trace its birth mother, discovering the crushing truth that it is not wanted.

 

Or the Child may grow up to be the next Hawking and not be too bothered about its mother. We can't predict the future, and this is one incident in a life full of millions...

 

 

 

Those two are not mutually exclusive, the child could be/experience both.

[Darkblade20]

How the... Abortion, really? I can't tell how that even came up.... While on the subject, I can throw in my two cents, though.

 

 

 

I'll start by saying, as a male, that no man has the right to tell a female what to do with her baby. Yes, it takes two to create a baby, but the female, inherently, takes all of the punishment during childbirth. On that same note, using abortion as a form of birth control is not justifiable, and is not right.

 

 

 

Looking at this from a medical point of view, abortion up from around eight to eleven weeks is justifiable. You are not aborting a human fetus, nor a medically living form. What you're simply killing is a parasitic entity that is not characteristic of life. Of course, pro-life supporters tend to warp what can be defined as life, but that's typical of a faithful opposition. Again, though, what you're getting rid of here isn't a human, not yet, at least. What can be deemed wrong though, are abortions which take place at, or around thirteen or more weeks of pregnancy. At this point, you do, indeed, garner A developing, or in some cases developed, human fetus. This is where most clinics will turn you away and tell you "you're having a baby, there's nothing we can do." Some clinics do perform terminations at this point in time, but it's a rather immoral, and disgusting procedure.

 

 

 

On the discussion of adoption procedures in lieu of termination, also comes under some crossfire, although, the numbers are clear. Generally adoptive measures would work out, but, here are some major, and fatal conflicts:

 

 

 

1) Facilities which deal in adoption are so dreadfully full at this stage, it's unreasonable to simply birth children and toss them right in there.

 

2) The amount of families which are extremely particular in their child's background number around 85-95%, children who aren't adopted and pass a certain point typically don't get adopted.

 

3)This can lead to general psychological problems among children in the future.

 

 

 

Adoption as a form of termination is generally immoral based on the above data (this is all proven through experimentation and study).

 

 

 

On the dilemma of rape in correlation with pregnancy and abortion, you are completely within your right to have a termination, unless you really want the child. The court will probably take measures, as well as tests to discern the recipient as a fit mother. Also, on the problem with a man being raped, and the rapist keeping the child, it's all a matter of the courts, again. If no convictions are made, and no evidence can be presented, it can go any way you can imagine. Although, either party can press for custody, and some problems may arise there.

[mmmcannibalism]

The child may be put up for adoption, and then try to trace its birth mother, discovering the crushing truth that it is not wanted.

 

 

 

As an adopted child(birthmom was 16 unintentional bla bla) I can tell you thats a rather pointless assumption. The only real problems with adoption are getting families to adopt instead of trying to force a natural pregnancy(yes I hate in vitro) and getting enough families that want to adopt.

 

 

 

I just say this because someone will always defend abortion by saying adopted kids are messed up and its to be frank total bull.

[sphinxor86]

 

I just say this because someone will always defend abortion by saying adopted kids are messed up and its to be frank total bull.

 

 

 

That sweeping statement was not what I intended. What I meant was that some adopted children/children in care have a very tough life. There are plenty of fantastic people who happened to be adopted, and you're lucky if you're one of them.

 

 

 

There is always uncertainty when giving birth to an 'unwanted' child. If abortion were prohibited, many many more unplanned children would be born, and a huge percentage of those would then go up for adoption. This would be far many more children than there would be demand for, so what would happen to those left over?? I struggle to imagine happy endings...

[mmmcannibalism]

 

I just say this because someone will always defend abortion by saying adopted kids are messed up and its to be frank total bull.

 

 

 

That sweeping statement was not what I intended. What I meant was that some adopted children/children in care have a very tough life. There are plenty of fantastic people who happened to be adopted, and you're lucky if you're one of them.

 

 

 

There is always uncertainty when giving birth to an 'unwanted' child. If abortion were prohibited, many many more unplanned children would be born, and a huge percentage of those would then go up for adoption. This would be far many more children than there would be demand for, so what would happen to those left over?? I struggle to imagine happy endings...

 

 

 

Don't worry, yours wasn't nearly as bad as some of the stuff I have seen. I recall, someone actually said that all adopted kids were messed up at some point on here.

 

 

 

Yeah there would be a lot of problems. One thing that always bothers me is that we act like abortion is necessary for the mother to be unburdened; in my case my adopted parents were selected by my birth mother before I was born. If any to be mother actually works she can easily insure the babies future, horror stories of foster homes only cover the fact that abortion is often a matter of convienence.

[sphinxor86]

 

One thing that always bothers me is that we act like abortion is necessary for the mother to be unburdened;

 

 

 

Its not a necessity, but it is a guarantee. And therein lies the problem.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

One thing that always bothers me is that we act like abortion is necessary for the mother to be unburdened;

 

 

 

Its not a necessity, but it is a guarantee. And therein lies the problem.

 

 

 

Indeed.

[archimage_a]

There is always uncertainty when giving birth to an 'unwanted' child. If abortion were prohibited, many many more unplanned children would be born, and a huge percentage of those would then go up for adoption. This would be far many more children than there would be demand for, so what would happen to those left over?? I struggle to imagine happy endings...

 

 

 

This sort of argument always annoys me.

 

We accept the lesser of two evils so we don't have to deal with the inherant problems in society...which are simply; a lack of education, too much freedom and a lack of responsibilty.

 

 

 

On the discussion of adoption procedures in lieu of termination, also comes under some crossfire, although, the numbers are clear. Generally adoptive measures would work out, but, here are some major, and fatal conflicts:

 

Ironically adopting a child is not something I would consider doing. Probably because I wouldn't want to imprint my ideas on to a child which I had picked at random, far too similar to branding for my liking.

 

 

 

A nice little injection of RS though, I think the Cave Goblins have a pretty good system.

 

All children are seperated from their parents at birth and are educated and such by an institution, money is therefore not a contributed fact and nor is parental pressure. Added to that the Children are comfortable with each other, since they grew up together, so they are less likely to be discordant members.

 

The only issue being that their education would be biased...

 

 

 

Of course, pro-life supporters tend to warp what can be defined as life

 

I wouldn't say warped.

 

Your defination could easily extend to a baby "What you're simply killing is a parasitic entity that is not characteristic of life"

 

A baby takes without giving and has none of the charateristics of a more developed human.

 

 

 

I'll start by saying, as a male, that no man has the right to tell a female what to do with her baby.

 

Oh for the days when the sexes were somewhat balanced.

 

Firstly I object to 'Her' baby, it is not 'Her' baby but rather a baby. It is not her possession.

 

Secondly a man has to be involved in making the baby in the first place, you would not build half a building and then have your work torn down because another contractor wasn't happy with it.

 

Thirdly, COME ON! We are supposed to be living in an age of enlightenment and yet we still take the most primative approach to the issue...

 

 

 

Yes, it takes two to create a baby, but the female, inherently, takes all of the punishment during childbirth

 

Completely false. Pregnacy is not a punishment but a reward, anyone who sees it as a punishment has a warped sense of the world to begin with.

 

Secondly the emotional torment that occurs in males is much greater than any physical discomfort a female might experiance...I have talked to people(males) who have said it was the most painful experiance of their life, I know people who have contemplated commiting sucide because their girlfriend got an abortion.

 

I might be persuaded that the emotional stresses on the female are greater in some of the more extreme cases, but I think you are dismissing the effect of feeling completely powerless that men can feel.

 

 

 

If any to be mother actually works she can easily insure the babies future,

 

 

 

Now I disagree here. Being a mother SHOULD be a full time job. My mother took four years out(Four years looking after me and two with my sister(She is two years younger)), and I can safely say that her not working has had numerous positive influances on my life, not least of which being the ability to put my trust in people and to form strong relationships relatively quickly.

 

I see the people who's mothers worked...I know mother's who leave their kids with childminders and such...The former tend to have a troublesome relationship with their parents, as well as being more easily influanced by praise, be it from teachers or from their peers. The later tends to get distant from their children because they can't understand where they get their ideas from, nor can they relate to their children when they are growing up.

 

(I would like to say that if I ever have children and my partner is unwilling to give up their job then I would, I am not adverse to males doing the looking after and the female being the bread winner)

 

 

 

If people didn't take advantage of it then I would advocate that the state looked after these people... In an age where you can just sit the child in front of a TV for hours while you do whatever you want many mothers and fathers only see children as a possession which they can play with when they want.

 

 

 

Its not a necessity, but it is a guarantee. And therein lies the problem.

 

I don't know, women have commited suicide because they had, or were forced into having, an abortion. It doesn't always 'unburden', sometines it just makes things a whole lot worse.

 

 

 

I remember once case where the father(Only 15) refused to ever talk to her again if she(15 as well I think) had the abortion, and parents who threatened to disown her if she didn't. Now they had been sweethearts since forever(they were not planning to have a baby, nor were they exactly planning to have sex(At that sort of age neither of their parents thought it would be a good idea to tell them about sex -.- )), but she couldn't disappoint her family so she got rid of the child.

 

He was true to his word and stopped talking to her, not only that but drove so deeply into depression that he began self harming and had an extremely strong dislike for women in general (So much so that he became totally abstinate and remained so till last we spoke...which must have been when he was 19ish).

 

She on the other hand became extremely extroverted because of how badly her parents had screwed up her life, having a succession of boyfriends and I think was pregnate again before the end of the year. (I don't know what happened to her because we fell out of contact)

 

 

 

Those two are not mutually exclusive, the child could be/experience both.

 

Yeah, they could. I fail to see your point though? Are you saying that it is better not to have a genius who is pained by their past?

[sphinxor86]

 

This sort of argument always annoys me.

 

We accept the lesser of two evils so we don't have to deal with the inherant problems in society...which are simply; a lack of education, too much freedom and a lack of responsibilty.

 

 

 

 

Well I had said previously that I'd prefer people took preventative measures before having sex!! Unfortunately that doesn't always happen, so we are left with the option of abortion.

 

 

 

All children are separated from their parents at birth and are educated and such by an institution, money is therefore not a contributed fact and nor is parental pressure. Added to that the Children are comfortable with each other, since they grew up together, so they are less likely to be discordant members.

 

 

 

You mean a hippie commune??!! They didn't work in the 60's and they're not gonna work now either.

 

 

 

Firstly I object to 'Her' baby, it is not 'Her' baby but rather a baby. It is not her possession.

 

Secondly a man has to be involved in making the baby in the first place

 

 

 

A large proportion of women (I'm not saying all of them) who opt for abortion are no longer in contact with the father, that being the very reason they opt for it in the first place.

 

 

 

I remember once case where the father(Only 15) refused to ever talk to her again if she(15 as well I think) had the abortion, and parents who threatened to disown her if she didn't. Now they had been sweethearts since forever(they were not planning to have a baby, nor were they exactly planning to have sex(At that sort of age neither of their parents thought it would be a good idea to tell them about sex -.- )), but she couldn't disappoint her family so she got rid of the child.

 

He was true to his word and stopped talking to her, not only that but drove so deeply into depression that he began self harming and had an extremely strong dislike for women in general (So much so that he became totally abstinate and remained so till last we spoke...which must have been when he was 19ish).

 

She on the other hand became extremely extroverted because of how badly her parents had screwed up her life, having a succession of boyfriends and I think was pregnate again before the end of the year. (I don't know what happened to her because we fell out of contact)

 

 

 

 

Classic example of destructive parenting, were they religious parents?

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Those two are not mutually exclusive, the child could be/experience both.

 

 

 

Yeah, they could. I fail to see your point though? Are you saying that it is better not to have a genius who is pained by their past?

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make is that any tormented child can become anything, genius or mass murderer, you can't tell.

[archimage_a]

Well I had said previously that I'd prefer people took preventative measures before having sex!! Unfortunately that doesn't always happen, so we are left with the option of abortion.

 

 

 

Nah I don't mean that(That I agree with :thumbsup: ). What I mean is that we accept abortion because:

 

The child might get in the way of someone's life, which clearly shows an unstable world outlook on our part, not to mention leaves a number of women, not so much men, depressed in later life because they didn't have children when they could.

 

We accept that the father has the right to run off after the deed is done, which also shows an unstable world outlook. Take, for instance, Jews(I say this because I watched Fiddler on the Roof a few months ago), the matchmaker comes along, locks two people together in matrimony and they have to live with it. For the most part, because they don't have a choice, they get on with it and eventually(according to the film) develop true feelings for each other... because life is so hard that you need someone else to be there to help you.

 

 

 

Those kinds of reasons(Sorry, I have just got up from an 11 hour sleep and am eating ice cream because my throat is on fire, so my arguments will probably not be so long as usual :D :cry: ) are the ones I mean.

 

 

 

You mean a hippie commune??!! They didn't work in the 60's and they're not gonna work now either.

 

I think I clearly said 'Cave Goblin Method.' :roll:

 

 

 

A large proportion of women (I'm not saying all of them) who opt for abortion are no longer in contact with the father, that being the very reason they opt for it in the first place.

 

Firstly, this is evidence of the above. Secondly a lot of women don't want to be back in contact with the father, most times(If they are not in contact) the father doesn't even know that he is a father until years after.

 

 

 

Classic example of destructive parenting, were they religious parents?

 

Actually one was(The father's side) very much a modern family who relied mainly on the TV to education their son. The other(Mother's side) were parents who had already decided that their two little girls were going to be doctors, lawyers or something of that calibre.

 

As such neither of them thought it would be a good idea to tell them about sex, the former because they never told him anything (They did however make sure all the child locks were on) and the later because they thought it would give her the wrong idea.

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make is that any tormented child can become anything, genius or mass murderer, you can't tell.

 

I agree, but you also can't tell that they will be tormented or not.

 

 

 

It could also be said that children who go though the adoption/foster system tend to be screwed up because most of the people who partake in it out screw ups themselves...Ie they are in it for the money, not the care and love bit. (I am really just saying there are more reasons than just 'being adopted' for a child to have problems. Not all of them do, obviously, but for those that do there are likely to be multiple reasons)

[mmmcannibalism]

Is it weird if I just was just singing "if I were a rich man" 30 seconds before I read that post?

 

 

 

This has been the weirdest abortion debate ever.