The Right to Life

[DeletedUser33530]

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;

For all you 'muricans out there. According to the good ol Declaration of Independence, it's astonishing it's not illegal in the states.

What? Lol
Also why did you use the rough draft of the declaration?

 

[Link of time]

Guy knows his stuff

Can you prove me wrong?

 

[DeletedUser33530]

I really don't know what I would be proving wrong.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Finally had the time to post in my favorite thread, so here it goes:

Often times, abortion comes as an option when it would considerably stress the community to care for a child the parents themselves would not be able to alone. Since the child, therefore, would simply end up being a net-loss for the community, there is little reason for them to support it.

Look at animals in nature. A duck is born with deformities that inhibit it from swimming? What does the mother do? Certainly not tell the little duckling that he'll be alright and that the rest of the family will support it for it's entire life.
No, she chucks the useless baby into a stream and walks away while it drowns or is washed away.

When a kitten is born with horrible deformities, what does the mother do?
She smothers it until it is dead, or she refuses to feed it until it starves.

We know we are in trouble when we start comparing animals to human beings. Since as you said they can't think the way we do, and don't have a conscience. They act solely on instinct, while most people ignore theirs and do what they want. Other than that, this whole post has nothing to do with anything imo

Well that still deducts from the life it could be living and maybe the life is better off not existing at all.

It will never deduct it to the severity that an abortion would, which is eliminating any chance of happiness or success that individual could have had. Also adoption isn't necessarily deducting anything. You can end up with better parents, or ones that at the very least care for you. I know people that were adopted, it greatly helped their life and took them out of worse circumstances.

Another issue with this is why is it up to another person to decide if a person is suffering or happy? It is no one's place to say that someone can't live because they won't be happy, you have no way of knowing what they feel. Let them see for themselves what life is like and not put that opportunity into the hands of another individual. Especially with an abortion where the individual is committing a selfish act.

I wasn't sure whether you were arguing against abortions or against masturbation and menstruation. The resulting ejected cells from those things also have the potential to become human. Just because something has potential to be something doesn't mean it has to become that. I can potentially become the richest man on earth but that doesn't mean I was robbed if I don't end up as the richest man.

Abortion should remain legal.

Masturbation is completely different, there is no sperm cell meeting egg cell in that activity. It on its own can't become anything. Come on Skully we all know that the cells will become a human being and only a human being. It won't be a dog, or a germ, or a plant. It will be a person, that is something that you should know from science Also I am not sure if pebble is trying to say it should be illegal but saying that it is immoral and it is just another form of murder.

No you're not denying a child that because it's not a child.

It is a child. Its heart is beating and has brain waves before any abortion could occur, and it can move and respond to touch in the 2nd month. Also what grows that doesn't live? It is living and it can only grow into a person. Are we not made up of cells, are you saying we are not people because we have cells. Because saying it is not a child is using that kind of logic. Right now it is like we are suggesting it iis an alien, which would also be living if that was the argument

Yup, this is the argument I was going to make.

An embryo is not conscious. It's quite literally a parasite, it cannot live without its host.

It is not conscious, alright lets go with that logic for just a minute. We also can't remember anything that happens in the first 2-3 years of our life, does that mean we didn't exist for that time period? That also means if I am in a coma and I manage to get out of it that I wasn't alive during the coma? Does that mean I rose from the dead then? If I get a concussion and it causes me to become unconscious then I am not alive? Seriously Skully I don't have a clue what you are trying to say by that.

A parasite, but that would mean that animals also encounter this situation. How else can you support it without giving nutrients? Also viability occurs in the 6th month. So since it is not a parasite by this point that means any abortions occurring at or after this point is murder right? Aborting a baby at that stage is pointless as it has to be removed anyway, so why not let it live and put it for adoption. We know that on some occasions the baby comes out and is still alive and is crying before it is successfully killed. So that goes against the conscious theory when they are experiencing pain and directly reacting to it. There are also rare occasions where the abortion fails and the child lives its life thanks to the failed abortion. Actually have a story on this scenario just need to find it.

Your last sentence is the embodiment of my entire stance on this. Having a child is probably the most life-changing event that could happen to you. Nobody should have a child forced upon them, so everyone should have the option to abort.

It is not forced, don't have sex if you can't handle the intended result of it. It is just a consequence for using sex other than its intended purpose of creating life. If they were that concerned they would take necessary precautions. A women should know her cycle well enough to know when she can have sex without becoming pregnant anyway, being careless is different that being forced. Also you are forcing the child not to be able to live the life it was entitled to and not giving it a chance to do what it wants. Skully you said you were for euthanasia right? You said because it was the person's choice. Well the baby doesn't have the choice to live or not when an abortion takes place, so doesn't that completely ruin your stance about people being entitled to decided whether they can live.

(cells that have potential to be human) != (a child)
It is also never "guaranteed" life beyond being the clump of cells that it is.

The mother could be killed the next day. She could miscarry. The cells could misdevelop and cause it to never become a child anyway.
There is no guarantee that that "child" would ever see the light of day.

Would you like to know what is actually guaranteed?
That it will, eventually, cease to exists. It will die. That is guaranteed.


Something having the potential to do something is not a guarantee that it will do it.

It really is a guarantee. A miscarriage is a natural death, it just died before it could lives its life outside of the womb. The cells could be misdeveloped, can you explain that please? Abortions only take place when a woman recognizes that she is pregnant. If they are misdeveloped, then she isn't pregnant and an abortion wouldn't occur. Unless you mean something else when you say that.

At the stage in which the vast majority of the abortions take place, the embryo is not a child. It's not a human. It has no conscience, in fact, it has no functioning brain. It's a clump of mostly stemcells. It's a parasite by definition.

Even after that, the border gets a bit more blurry but it is still not an individual living organism.

After roughly 30 weeks the fetus could live on its own, and at that point I am against abortion by choice as it's only a few weeks untill you could put it up for adoption if you don't want it. But regardless at that point I an fairly certain the only abortions that do happen are because the mother's life is in danger or if the child would have a serious handicap/illness.

Oh ok so you do think it is wrong when it could survive on its own. In that case I guess you will have to disregard my earlier question. A serious illness is not a reason for an abortion. It is something you can be able to live through, and the doctors aren't always right. A doctor told my mom when I was 2 or 3 that I had autism. Are you suggesting that because of what a doctor thinks I shouldn't live. Anyway he was dead wrong and I am happy for that as people like you show no mercy or respect to people who don't have all the abilities that you do. Although we are all imperfect so to suggest one should die because of an imperfection is being a hypocrite.

At 6 weeks a baby already has brain waves and has had a beating heart anywhere on the 18th day after conception. It is already alive and can do so many things. If it is living and can only be a person when the pregnancy is over then what is it? How can we argue that is not a living organism when it does everything that a living organism does? Using this logic I will say the germs and plants are not alive because they have no functioning brain.

You do know that no birth control works 100% and that accidents do happen? Do you want to outlaw sex for pleasure entirely?

Well from a religious standpoint sex is reserved for marriage and intended to create life and not for pleasure. So it is already supposed to be out of the picture to most people, but like I told you in that other thread people don't listen to things their religion teaches. Not the religions fault, they have no way of enforcing what goes on in a person's life. Unless they become like Big Brother

If only humans laid eggs...

Great idea Skully, then there will be no reason for abortions to take place

Well, lets consider what separates euthanasia from murder? The choice of the concerned party. An embryo cannot choose to live, it does not have a brain you can not say that it doesn't want to be killed.

So no murder. Unless the person wants to live, killing it cannot be called murder. Since want cannot exist without thoughts, I don't see how the entire process falls under the definition of murder.

Using this logic it can't chose to die and therefore should not be killed. That argument is a 2 sided coin, can't just ignore the other side. Also this is the strangest definition of murder I have seen :heh:

Then you call euthanasia murder? Because its premeditated, and kills someone not deserving to die(regardless of the fact that he wants to)

This debate was never about the law or proving something. Just as you cannot prove the embryo will develop into a child and there will be no tragedy. If someone cannot think, cannot want to live or die, I don't see how its murder?

Yes it is murder, just as is any other technique of taking a life away from someone. Euthanasia is no different than suicide, which most people would agree is murder. So if a criminal kills a person that doesn't think then it is ok. I know plenty of living people who can't think and just go with the crowd or go with whatever they are told. Since they don't think for themselves that means if someone killed them it wouldn't be murder? I hope you realize how little sense that makes.

It happens every day, but also every day tragedies happen. So it can not be considered guaranteed. So you blame people for murder because the cells which may or may not turn into human were removed?

It is a guarantee that tragedies happen in the world, because they already have. As for this potential thing I will tell you to refer to one of the previous things I quoted. The way we are talking right now it sounds like even death isn't a guarantee with the logic people have used.

 

[DeletedUser]

Masturbation is completely different, there is no sperm cell meeting egg cell in that activity. It on its own can't become anything. Come on Skully we all know that the cells will become a human being and only a human being. It won't be a dog, or a germ, or a plant. It will be a person, that is something that you should know from science Also I am not sure if pebble is trying to say it should be illegal but saying that it is immoral and it is just another form of murder.

I'm not sure where the dog/animal thing came from as I never implied anything different? But regardless, my point was that 'potential' is such a vague term and doesn't really carry any weight in the argument. Because like I said, ejected sperm from masturbation or ejected egg cells from menstrual blood both have the 'potential' to become a human being. Sure, they need eachother but that doesn't mean they lose their 'potentiality.'

It is a child. Its heart is beating and has brain waves before any abortion could occur, and it can move and respond to touch in the 2nd month. Also what grows that doesn't live? It is living and it can only grow into a person. Are we not made up of cells, are you saying we are not people because we have cells. Because saying it is not a child is using that kind of logic. Right now it is like we are suggesting it iis an alien, which would also be living if that was the argument

I'm not suggesting any of that, I'm suggesting that a a large clump of mostly unspecialized stem cells is not a child. That an embryo without a fully functional body is not a child. Your second sentence is also factually wrong. I would suggest reading up on the stages of the embryo as you're lacking information. Abortions can take place immediately after fertilization, long before a heart or brain even exist. Hell they can even happen before fertilization in the form of the morning after pill.

The heart is the earliest organ and that one only actually works and starts beating in week 3 of the pregnancy, 5 of the gestation. The brain is not fully developed until much later in the pregnancy, in fact it only starts forming around week 3 and isn't functional until roughly week 18-20. At this point the vast majority of abortions have already taken place read the fineprint.
After week ~30 when the fetus is actually a functioning human being, a child which could survive outside of the mother, I also am against abortions unless it has a disability or the mother's life is in danger.

It is not conscious, alright lets go with that logic for just a minute. We also can't remember anything that happens in the first 2-3 years of our life, does that mean we didn't exist for that time period? That also means if I am in a coma and I manage to get out of it that I wasn't alive during the coma? Does that mean I rose from the dead then? If I get a concussion and it causes me to become unconscious then I am not alive? Seriously Skully I don't have a clue what you are trying to say by that.

No it doesn't because being conscious is not the same as being able to remember.. I also never said the embryo is not alive. (although that part is highly debatable too considering the biological definition of life)
What I was trying to say was that that it's not a functional human being. Keep in mind that I specifically stated embryo here which is different from a fetus. An embryo lacks a multitude of functional vital organs and would instantly die when removed from the uterus.

A parasite, but that would mean that animals also encounter this situation. How else can you support it without giving nutrients? Also viability occurs in the 6th month. So since it is not a parasite by this point that means any abortions occurring at or after this point is murder right? Aborting a baby at that stage is pointless as it has to be removed anyway, so why not let it live and put it for adoption. We know that on some occasions the baby comes out and is still alive and is crying before it is successfully killed. So that goes against the conscious theory when they are experiencing pain and directly reacting to it. There are also rare occasions where the abortion fails and the child lives its life thanks to the failed abortion. Actually have a story on this scenario just need to find it.

I'm not sure what you mean with this first sentence? Are you saying that animals are parasites too? I mean they kind of are but not by the definition I was using, but I hope that was clear. :\

And yes, like I have said before in this thread, I do think that abortions after week ~27 should not happen. I actually made your exact point about adoption before.

It is not forced, don't have sex if you can't handle the intended result of it. It is just a consequence for using sex other than its intended purpose of creating life. If they were that concerned they would take necessary precautions. A women should know her cycle well enough to know when she can have sex without becoming pregnant anyway, being careless is different that being forced. Also you are forcing the child not to be able to live the life it was entitled to and not giving it a chance to do what it wants.

I mean I agree it's extremely stupid to not use contraception but like I said contraception never works 100%. You don't have to be careless to get pregnant unexpectedly. You just have to be unlucky.

Skully you said you were for euthanasia right? You said because it was the person's choice. Well the baby doesn't have the choice to live or not when an abortion takes place, so doesn't that completely ruin your stance about people being entitled to decided whether they can live.

No it doesn't because there's no person yet. The choice should be made by the mother as it's her body which is at stake.

Oh ok so you do think it is wrong when it could survive on its own. In that case I guess you will have to disregard my earlier question. A serious illness is not a reason for an abortion. It is something you can be able to live through, and the doctors aren't always right. A doctor told my mom when I was 2 or 3 that I had autism. Are you suggesting that because of what a doctor thinks I shouldn't live. Anyway he was dead wrong and I am happy for that as people like you show no mercy or respect to people who don't have all the abilities that you do. Although we are all imperfect so to suggest one should die because of an imperfection is being a hypocrite.

I already typed the response to your earlier question so I'm gonna leave it. Anyways, let me clarify the other point before you start hating me

You're definitely underestimating what I mean with serious disability and I'm not suggesting that at all. Autism is nothing, I'm referring to the myriad of diseases which will kill the child within any time period between a few days and a few years. There are also thousands of syndromes where the baby's mental or physical health would be severely limited. I could link to some pictures but they are probably not appropriate for this forum.
I'm not talking about things like autism or asthma. They can easily be lived with. Think much more serious.

At 6 weeks a baby already has brain waves and has had a beating heart anywhere on the 18th day after conception. It is already alive and can do so many things. If it is living and can only be a person when the pregnancy is over then what is it? How can we argue that is not a living organism when it does everything that a living organism does? Using this logic I will say the germs and plants are not alive because they have no functioning brain.

Again, I never said it was not alive, you're the one who keeps bringing that up. Being a parasite doesn't mean you're not alive.

Well from a religious standpoint sex is reserved for marriage and intended to create life and not for pleasure. So it is already supposed to be out of the picture to most people, but like I told you in that other thread people don't listen to things their religion teaches. Not the religions fault, they have no way of enforcing what goes on in a person's life. Unless they become like Big Brother

This should not matter in any way, regarding the legality at least. I'm fairly sure you agree that religion should be separate from state/law (right?) and that to someone like me your religions teaching are actually 100% irrelevant. I'd also argue 'should be out of the picture for most people' is not true, especially not where I live where most people don't actually follow a religion.

Great idea Skully, then there will be no reason for abortions to take place

If only the technology was there

Yes it is murder, just as is any other technique of taking a life away from someone. Euthanasia is no different than suicide, which most people would agree is murder. So if a criminal kills a person that doesn't think then it is ok. I know plenty of living people who can't think and just go with the crowd or go with whatever they are told. Since they don't think for themselves that means if someone killed them it wouldn't be murder? I hope you realize how little sense that makes.

There is a crucial difference you are missing between the not thinking as in 'going with the crowd' and not thinking as in 'literally lacking the ability to think.'

It is a guarantee that tragedies happen in the world, because they already have. As for this potential thing I will tell you to refer to one of the previous things I quoted. The way we are talking right now it sounds like even death isn't a guarantee with the logic people have used.

I could argue that with the rate of technological advances in the medical and bio-mechanical fields death is not a guarantee anymore for us, but that's just the futurologist in me talking

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Think I addressed everything, got cut off at one point and might have not responded to something by accident.

No it doesn't because being conscious is not the same as being able to remember.. I also never said the embryo is not alive. (although that part is highly debatable too considering the biological definition of life)
What I was trying to say was that that it's not a functional human being. Keep in mind that I specifically stated embryo here which is different from a fetus. An embryo lacks a multitude of functional vital organs and would instantly die when removed from the uterus.

I missed the word embryo, my bad. I agree it can't survive outside of the uterus. Until one day where we can put it in a machine that acts like a mother's body

I'm not suggesting any of that, I'm suggesting that a a large clump of mostly unspecialized stem cells is not a child. That an embryo without a fully functional body is not a child. Your second sentence is also factually wrong. I would suggest reading up on the stages of the embryo as you're lacking information. Abortions can take place immediately after fertilization, long before a heart or brain even exist. Hell they can even happen before fertilization in the form of the morning after pill.

The heart is the earliest organ and that one only actually works and starts beating in week 3 of the pregnancy, 5 of the gestation. The brain is not fully developed until much later in the pregnancy, in fact it only starts forming around week 3 and isn't functional until roughly week 18-20. At this point the vast majority of abortions have already taken place read the fineprint.
After week ~30 when the fetus is actually a functioning human being, a child which could survive outside of the mother, I also am against abortions unless it has a disability or the mother's life is in danger.

There are people who do not have a fully functioning body. They are definitely alive and were definitely children at one point. So I would like to say that an embryo is a person, even though it can't survive on its own. Neither can some people without a surgery or some form of treatment, doesn't make them any less of a human being because they need help to survive. How can an abortion take place right after fertilization? The woman is not going to realize it is their until she doesn't have her period, and by then its heart is already pumping out blood. Morning after pill is different, it is preventing a pregnancy not ending one. At least that seems to be what the internet is saying.

Also I am not sure what I said in the 2nd sentence that was incorrect, unless I am looking at the wrong sentence. lol Sorry for not reading the fine print, it was to small for me So according to the chart that means at least 67% of abortions occur after its heart starts beating. Ok so with the 2 weeks thing then the brain waves begin during the 8th week, so I guess that week has to be excluded. That still leaves us with 35.5% of abortions coming after brain waves do.

Nice to see that you are against abortions around the 30th week. Though the baby deserves a chance to live with the disability. Nothing is set in stone that they are subject to a life of hopelessness and pain. They could very well recover, or the doctors initial diagnosis could be incorrect. As much as things have improved, doctors still make mistakes and misdiagnose. Can't let their word be the death sentence to child. I agree that sadly the baby has to be aborted if it threatens the health of the woman in such a way. As the baby can't survive without the mother anyway so everything needs to be done to save that woman. Actually wait we are talking about after viability. The baby has to be removed anyway at the point, why not have an early pregnancy. It would be like having a premature child, and with the kid out the doctors can invest their time into protecting the life of the mother. They can save two lives in that scenario so why not save both?

I'm not sure where the dog/animal thing came from as I never implied anything different? But regardless, my point was that 'potential' is such a vague term and doesn't really carry any weight in the argument. Because like I said, ejected sperm from masturbation or ejected egg cells from menstrual blood both have the 'potential' to become a human being. Sure, they need eachother but that doesn't mean they lose their 'potentiality.'

The animal/plant thing was saying that those group of cells only become a person. If they are to become something they won't turn into anything else. I know you didn't imply that, but after seeing so many posts seeing that the cells not being humans convinced me that I had to use that to help prove my point. It is not so much potential, because what happens if you let the pregnancy go through in its duration? You end up with a baby, and as long as you don't stop the process through abortion a baby is the result. If having a baby wasn't a guarantee then people wouldn't have to resort for an abortion.

I'm not sure what you mean with this first sentence? Are you saying that animals are parasites too? I mean they kind of are but not by the definition I was using, but I hope that was clear. :\

And yes, like I have said before in this thread, I do think that abortions after week ~27 should not happen. I actually made your exact point about adoption before.

lol Well I guess we can argue that they do take away resources, although by saying that we are assuming the world is ours and not for the other species. I didn't intend to mean it that way, although I see now how it sounds that way. Actually looking back I can't remember what exactly is was saying. I think I was saying that animals get pregnant too so they have to deal with a parasite being in them, at least the ones that don't lay eggs. Whatever I meant, I know that wasn't what you were saying about parasites

Actually now that I think about it I do remember you mentioning adoption earlier. My apologies, I was trying to respond to just about everything on the first 9 pages and well I might have missed some things or just forgot about them once I began writing.

I mean I agree it's extremely stupid to not use contraception but like I said contraception never works 100%. You don't have to be careless to get pregnant unexpectedly. You just have to be unlucky.

It is unlucky and I know it isn't a guarantee to stop pregnancy. Though if a person is having sex they should be able to realize that there is a chance of pregnancy. By accepting that possibility and doing it anyway the couple should be responsible for their actions and give birth to the child. Whether the couple plans on keeping the child or not.

No it doesn't because there's no person yet. The choice should be made by the mother as it's her body which is at stake.

Ok fine then we disagree on it being a person. What do you mean at stake though? Almost seems to imply like it is a great risk.

Anyways, let me clarify the other point before you start hating me

You're definitely underestimating what I mean with serious disability and I'm not suggesting that at all. Autism is nothing, I'm referring to the myriad of diseases which will kill the child within any time period between a few days and a few years. There are also thousands of syndromes where the baby's mental or physical health would be severely limited. I could link to some pictures but they are probably not appropriate for this forum.
I'm not talking about things like autism or asthma. They can easily be lived with. Think much more serious.

I won't start hating on you, though I admit that I do seem to disagree with you a lot I still don't agree with not giving those children a chance to live, as nothing is set in stone. They can recover, there is no guarantee they are doomed to a life of hopelessness and pain. At least I understand your definition of serious disease, as you don't set the bar as low as some other people do

Again, I never said it was not alive, you're the one who keeps bringing that up. Being a parasite doesn't mean you're not alive.

I would have to check, I might have been referencing something else another person said and might have just wrote it with one of your quotes. As I was quoting quite a bit before

This should not matter in any way, regarding the legality at least. I'm fairly sure you agree that religion should be separate from state/law (right?) and that to someone like me your religions teaching are actually 100% irrelevant. I'd also argue 'should be out of the picture for most people' is not true, especially not where I live where most people don't actually follow a religion.

Definitely a separation, and yeah I know that you don't care about the religious teachings. It is to be expected, I mean I think I wouldn't either if I didn't believe in God. Well yeah sure in your country it is the exact opposite. According to the World Factbook, 11.67% of the global population are either atheists or non-religious. So that is what I mean when I said it "should be out of the picture for most people", that most are tied to religion and most religions believe sex is for populating the earth and not for pleasure.

If only the technology was there

There is a crucial difference you are missing between the not thinking as in 'going with the crowd' and not thinking as in 'literally lacking the ability to think.'

I could argue that with the rate of technological advances in the medical and bio-mechanical fields death is not a guarantee anymore for us, but that's just the futurologist in me talking

With the bolded sentence all I have to say is: Skully get in the lab and make it happen!

Speaking of that thinking thing, I was wondering if you think that a person who is brain dead is dead or alive? I know it is irrelevant to what you were saying but just curious.

It is great that the life expectancy always seems to be going up, but then again with all the stuff done that is destroying the environment we would have to overcome death on another planet probably, or in the sky

 

[DeletedUser31385]

This reminds me of what the Spartans did. They abandoned babies that were not perfect and left them to die. Abortions are the same concept. They are being killed for not being what the mother wanted. That is definitely murder.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

No it doesn't because being conscious is not the same as being able to remember.. I also never said the embryo is not alive. (although that part is highly debatable too considering the biological definition of life)
What I was trying to say was that that it's not a functional human being. Keep in mind that I specifically stated embryo here which is different from a fetus. An embryo lacks a multitude of functional vital organs and would instantly die when removed from the uterus.

I was just skimming through and this caught my eye. I have heard debates over whether or not a virus can be considered alive but an embryo? Or for that matter, any cell or group of cells? I mean i dont have an understanding of biology far beyond the basics but i have never heard anyone claim anything close to that before.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

interesting video I found on this topic (more or less)

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll limit my rebuttal to abortion in case of rape.

I've been browsing through these pages, and I think I can conclude none of you is a woman who would suffer from an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm wrong, please let me know who the female is. I love how some of you think being pregnant is a walk in the park ("why not just have the baby, she can put it up for adoption!") while it's quite taxing on her body, completely putting aside the obvious emotional burden on the woman if the child wasn't wanted, feeling no love for it, hating that it's growing inside them. Do you have any idea how traumatizing that is? So if she decides to abortion, another invasive procedure, don't you agree that's entirely HER decision?

As Skullyhoofd has posted, an embryo has no brains, so could not have a consciousness (like young childs, even though we don't remember), it's not a living human being. It could become one, but at that point it's not.

 

[DeletedUser5819]

Just to add to Brandr's points, its always good to find out your dad was a rapist, that he raped your mum, and that's why neither of them could bear to keep you.

Something to aspire to there when you come of age and they can't stop you from finding out - which you have been dreaming of doing ever since you knew you were adopted. I wonder how you dreamed your parents would be.

 

[Link of time]

I'll limit my rebuttal to abortion in case of rape.

I've been browsing through these pages, and I think I can conclude none of you is a woman who would suffer from an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm wrong, please let me know who the female is. I love how some of you think being pregnant is a walk in the park ("why not just have the baby, she can put it up for adoption!") while it's quite taxing on her body, completely putting aside the obvious emotional burden on the woman if the child wasn't wanted, feeling no love for it, hating that it's growing inside them. Do you have any idea how traumatizing that is? So if she decides to abortion, another invasive procedure, don't you agree that's entirely HER decision?

As Skullyhoofd has posted, an embryo has no brains, so could not have a consciousness (like young childs, even though we don't remember), it's not a living human being. It could become one, but at that point it's not.

So, are you the woman?

 

[DeletedUser]

So, are you the woman?

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not. But if you buy me dinner, we can still see how things go from there!

 

[DeletedUser33530]

I'll limit my rebuttal to abortion in case of rape.

I've been browsing through these pages, and I think I can conclude none of you is a woman who would suffer from an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm wrong, please let me know who the female is. I love how some of you think being pregnant is a walk in the park ("why not just have the baby, she can put it up for adoption!") while it's quite taxing on her body, completely putting aside the obvious emotional burden on the woman if the child wasn't wanted, feeling no love for it, hating that it's growing inside them. Do you have any idea how traumatizing that is? So if she decides to abortion, another invasive procedure, don't you agree that's entirely HER decision?

I'm with pebble on this (he said it somewhere) that in the case of rape if there is an abortion the rapist would be guilty of both rape and murder. I'll try and find pebble's original quote where he explains that lol.

As Skullyhoofd has posted, an embryo has no brains, so could not have a consciousness (like young childs, even though we don't remember), it's not a living human being. It could become one, but at that point it's not.

yeah but that's not what pebble was arguing in his initial post.

 

[DeletedUser49358]

Just to add to Brandr's points, its always good to find out your dad was a rapist, that he raped your mum, and that's why neither of them could bear to keep you.

Something to aspire to there when you come of age and they can't stop you from finding out - which you have been dreaming of doing ever since you knew you were adopted. I wonder how you dreamed your parents would be.

This topic has been brought up before, the idea that no life would be better than the possible life the unborn child would end up having and I said before its not a legitimate argument as the alternative to low quality life is no life at all. Abortion because the child may not be born into an ideal environment is not a justifiable argument for abortion on its own.

On a counter point to what you brought up here think about the opposite for this, a child being born growing up and coming of age to have of his/her parent tell them that the other parent wanted them to be aborted, or that they were raised by their grandparents because their parents wanted an abortion ect...

 

[DeletedUser]

[..] its not a legitimate argument as the alternative to low quality life is no life at all.

If it was never a living being to begin with, I don't see how this in itself is a legitimate argument. I do realize that this debate could back and forth indefinitely as we have a different opinion on what is 'alive' - not to be confused with 'life', that's something we kill on a large scale every single day regardless. I've been in this argument before, and this one will end as all the others: inconclusively.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

If it was never a living being to begin with, I don't see how this in itself is a legitimate argument. I do realize that this debate could back and forth indefinitely as we have a different opinion on what is 'alive' - not to be confused with 'life', that's something we kill on a large scale every single day regardless. I've been in this argument before, and this one will end as all the others: inconclusively.

We are arguing that you are killing the potienal for life which is equivalent of murder. If you would like an explanation for that read the initial post in this thread.

That said you just agreed with slim. A life is better than no life. Saying that it was never alive is the same as the no life option there.

 

[DeletedUser]

We are arguing that you are killing the potienal for life which is equivalent of murder.

That said you just agreed with slim. A life is better than no life. Saying that it was never alive is the same as the no life option there.

I did not agree with Slim. I'm saying it wasn't life to begin with, so it can't be murder. Nothing for nothing equals nothing.

And of course, I do not agree with your premise. ;-)

Having said that, I'll leave the rest of the debate to you. This is a potentially endless debate. At one point or another, one side will give up on posting, until the debate is revived again.

 

[DeletedUser49358]

If it was never a living being to begin with, I don't see how this in itself is a legitimate argument. I do realize that this debate could back and forth indefinitely as we have a different opinion on what is 'alive' - not to be confused with 'life', that's something we kill on a large scale every single day regardless. I've been in this argument before, and this one will end as all the others: inconclusively.

I have also touched on this as well, even though those cells may not be living at the time of the abortion and arguments can be made that they may never be formed into a child and be born (things do happen) it still remains that an abortion eliminates all possible chance of those cells being formed into a life. So while you may argue that the cells aren't alive and that an abortion isn't killing a life it does completely prevent the formation of a life that would more than likely happen if the abortion didn't take place.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

I did not agree with Slim. I'm saying it wasn't life to begin with, so it can't be murder. Nothing for nothing equals nothing.

That wasn't what I was saying you were agreeing with but whatever.

Again we are saying you are killing the potienal for life which is equivalent to murder. See first post for explanation.