|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:34 PM |
|
|
Nobody is carrying about the quality life of a child if he was unwanted?
I think some should become more realists about that. Very few countries in the world can manage raising an abandoned child and have the resources for that. Without doubt in France, Germany or USA an unwanted child can be saved from abortion and be given chances to become like all other humans. But in 80% of countries he will have an awful fate. Does he deserve it?
Here is how look abandoned child in my country. I did not post directly the pic for obvious purposes. is this compassion or just cruelty? Where is the morale behind refusing the abortion in this case?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:42, 13 Jul 2009.
|
@JollyJoker: Quote:
Interesting cases here. Assume in all cases the pregnant doesn't want the child:
"Doesn't want" doesn't apply. I don't want to have to treat the people I injure if I make an accident, but I have to.
Quote:
A father rapes his 13-year-old daughter. She gets pregnant.
Rape, father is charged, daughter is innocent.
Quote:
An older woman already in her menopause surprisingly gets pregnant. She's already in her 40s and chances are the child will be handicapped in some way. The woman has 2 grown-up children already and is happy in her current job. She doesn't want to bear aother chil at this stage, especially not with the chance that it will be handicapped. Go ahead and tell her to get the child.
Let's see. You want to decide whether the fetus' life is worth the hassle or not (the fetus' life I mean) or if it is better off dead.
PROBLEM: that's what religious people think too, that people are better off dead than having their souls painted with sin. How come you condemn that? How do YOU know what's better for them?
Quote:
A 16-year-old drug addict working the streets gets pregnant...
So?
You're saying it's up to us to decide whether the fetus will have a miserable life and whether he is better off dead?
How about we decide whether someone's soul is better off clean and their physical bodies dead?
It's called ritual sacrifices.
Quote:
A 15-year-old with a divorced and alcoholic mother runs away from home, getting pregnant by trying to get through.
Not sure what you mean but I'm pretty sure it fits the rape/non-rape profile. 
Quote:
A 25-year-old having already 5 kids goes to the authorities and tells them, that she doesn't want children anymore, but she hasn't got the money for either operation or pill and her husband doesn't care and gives her no rest.
What do you mean the husband gives her no rest? You mean he abuses her? By all means file a complaint etc...
Or does he rape her? Please be more specific.
Quote:
What about this? A 13-year-old is pregnant from her brother; in this case they both want to have the child and live together.
What has this got to do with abortion if they decide to keep the baby?
Quote:
Oh, and all those cases seem to suffer from a lack of care for the living more than for the not-yet living.
You care for innocent life more than for guilty life, it's that simple. Some of your examples are entirely the woman's fault, in others it is the rapist/abuser fault. In either case, those lives are worth less.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Salamandre:
Pro-lifers aren't really pro-life most of the time (talking about the demograph). They validate the death penalty and don't care about giving money to education, most of them anyway. They just want people at military age
Well, I'd appreciate if people would recognize there are more than two sides to this debate, that is not just "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
Well, to put it in American terms: there's the democratic and the republican side
EDIT: and the term pro-life was on debate, so it is certainly on-topic on the subject of abortion. If the death penalty is something you agree upon, than the term pro-life is definitely ill-fitting. Likewise if you apporve of war.
And some pro-lifers make homosexuals their enemies even, though I would want you to make a guess which demographic has the least amount of abortions all the time
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I claim people without brains are not human. I won't even call them people anymore. Brain damaged people or people who lose all conscious/ memory are a little less human than us, because they don't have the ability to use their brains to their full potential.
What's a brain? 1 neuron? 500 neurons? Billions of neurons? Also, the brain design is again, already in the DNA.
A fully functional brain is a fully functional brain, generally we talk about motor skills, processing skills and memory. I don't really include motor skills. I won't use the word 'normal', because there is no such thing.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now we have "TheDeath-time" again...
Could you ONE time stick to what you have said and NOT change your point of view when you realize you are "trapped"?
You clearly said: Yes but SHE put the fetus there
And I said: NO.
Having sex =/= pregnant!
Yes SHE PUTS the fetus there. Her actions put the fetus there. If she doesn't DO ANYTHING the fetus WILL NOT BE PLACED THERE EVER. Unless she is raped of course.
She does something --> outcome can turn out BECAUSE OF HER ACTIONS. So she is directly responsible for her actions.
Or are you saying you've known women who got pregnant (without being raped) and doing nothing?
You know, with YOUR logic, I could say that I can pull a trigger, and I don't kill anyone with a gun, the bullet does. All I do is pull the trigger right? I don't kill anyone, so how come I am responsible for the deaths of those I shot? All I do is "pull the trigger".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What's a brain? 1 neuron? 500 neurons? Billions of neurons? Also, the brain design is again, already in the DNA.
A fully functional brain is a fully functional brain, generally we talk about motor skills, processing skills and memory. I don't really include motor skills. I won't use the word 'normal', because there is no such thing.
No brains are 100% identical, some lack parts (handicapped), some have more neurons, some have less. Like I said it is impossible to quantify a "fully functional brain", unless you mean that people with a small handicap aren't human, or that people with MORE neurons than average are "more human than human" (lol so ridiculous sounds).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:45 PM |
|
|
Death, are you KIDDING?
I clearly said that I have the same view than angelito: It xhould be the choice of the WOMAN whether she wants a child or not. If she wants it, fine, if not, fine.
It doesn't matter who's "at fault" or "guilty".
I clearly wrote that the cases I made are all cases where teh woman does not want the child.
Will YOU go ahead, tell them, yes, you do have to keep the child - and take responsibility for all that hapens because of that? For the "saved" child? For the woman you forced to do something she didn't want to?
Will you accept guilt for everything that happens with child and mother because YOU forced her to get th child against her will?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 08:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Death, are you KIDDING?
I clearly said that I have the same view than angelito: It xhould be the choice of the WOMAN whether she wants a child or not. If she wants it, fine, if not, fine.
It doesn't matter who's "at fault" or "guilty".
I clearly wrote that the cases I made are all cases where teh woman does not want the child.
Will YOU go ahead, tell them, yes, you do have to keep the child - and take responsibility for all that hapens because of that? For the "saved" child? For the woman you forced to do something she didn't want to?
Will you accept guilt for everything that happens with child and mother because YOU forced her to get th child against her will?
Will YOU accept guilt for whatever happens to a child in a religious family because you stop the parents from sacrificing him?
I'd like to know your answer to this first.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You care for innocent life more than for guilty life, it's that simple. Some of your examples are entirely the woman's fault, in others it is the rapist/abuser fault. In either case, those lives are worth less.
You sure, you want to enter the interesting area of comparing the worth of lifes? You might end finding your way through some smoke stack tht way.
Quote:
Will YOU accept guilt for whatever happens to a child in a religious family because you stop the parents from sacrificing him?
I'd like to know your answer to this first.
I wonder now about how you will compare the two cases. You mean, if you allow a woman to abort a fetus you can just as well allow people to sacrifice their children? You say in all earnest that aborting a fetus is the same than sacrificing a child?
Do you think that?
In that case I would like to hear under which conditions you WOULD allow a child sacrifice, since if I interpret you right there ARE circumstances for you under which abortion is ok. So? When is it ok to sacrifice a child then?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 09:21 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:24, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
You sure, you want to enter the interesting area of comparing the worth of lifes? You might end finding your way through some smoke stack tht way.
Well, I do know that many people will not feel the same when a criminal dies than when a completely innocent and honest person dies. There is no such thing as "equal life" because life actually represents actions (or else it wouldn't be alive, it would be static... or dead). Based on the choices and actions, we can determine the life of a person.
I'm sorry if you think that me not mourning the death of a rapist or serial killer or anything like that makes me a hypocrite or something bad. (this is extreme, since many crimes do not deserve death, like simple theft for instance -- I'm not that black and white lol).
I'm not exactly pro-death-penalty for those people -- but IF they die, I don't consider them a loss at all, compared to an innocent person. (but let's not get into the death penalty discussion as I'm sure Elodin would go on it ).
Quote:
I wonder now about how you will compare the two cases. You mean, if you allow a woman to abort a fetus you can just as well allow people to sacrifice their children? You say in all earnest that aborting a fetus is the same than sacrificing a child?
Do you think that?
In that case I would like to hear under which conditions you WOULD allow a child sacrifice, since if I interpret you right there ARE circumstances for you under which abortion is ok. So? When is it ok to sacrifice a child then?
No you got the analogy wrong. I meant that the argument (not sure if you used it) that "the child will have a bad life" is worthless because of the above.
I don't actually allow abortions, because they always punish somebody -- and that somebody is the person responsible for the fetus being there. If it's a rapist, then abortion isn't "allowed", it's just that the guilt will be on the rapist.
Please understand that in my viewpoint, there is no such thing as "allowed" or "disallowed". It's just on WHO you place the blame.
For example, let's say you start to shoot in random directions -- the blame will be on you fully if you shoot somebody in the process. If someone forced you to shoot in random directions, or even worse, forced you to directly kill somebody, then you are free of blame.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 09:55 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:22, 13 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Therefore, it should be up to the mother whether she wants a child or not.
Whether or not she wants a child the child is insider her. Her not wanting a child cannot justify her killing the child.
Quote:
An older woman already in her menopause surprisingly gets pregnant. She's already in her 40s and chances are the child will be handicapped in some way.
Are you saying handicapped people have less worth than "non-handicapped" people? Do "normal" people have a greater right to life than handicapped people?
Quote:
16-year-old drug addict working the streets gets pregnant...
A 15-year-old with a divorced and alcoholic mother runs away from home, getting pregnant by trying to get through.
No reason to kill a kid.
Quote:
A 25-year-old having already 5 kids goes to the authorities and tells them, that she doesn't want children anymore, but she hasn't got the money for either operation or pill and her husband doesn't care and gives her no rest.
I guess she married the wrong man. She can go live with Mommy rather than murdering her children. And there are shelters for abused women. If she decides she doesn't want to have sex anymore I guess she is saying she doesn't want to be married.
By the way, if she can't afford an operation how can she afford abortion?
Quote:
Oh, and all those cases seem to suffer from a lack of care for the living more than for the not-yet living.
A fetus is alive according to science. The cells of dead things don't multiply.
Quote:
Oh...but my HEART and my KIDNEY are also INSIDE my body.
A heart is only a heart. A kidney is only a kidney.
A fetus has unique human DNA and so can't be considered a part of the mother. A fetus may also have a different blood type.
Quote:
That's your opinion. My opinion differs. Life of a human starts (imho!) with the first breath outside of the woman's body.
I can only assume your opinion is a religious opinion because science says otherwise. You entitled to your religious beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
The baby will leave during the part of the human life cycle that he is supposed to leave the womb.
This is not the question here. We are NOT talking about what will be in....years. We are talking about the situation when the fetus is INSIDE the body of the woman. Outside, it is NOT part of her anymore, therefore she doesn't have the right anymore to do whatever she wants to.
Yes, it is the question. The fetus is in the early stages of the human life cycle. At that stage the human life is supposed to be in the womb. The womb was designed (by nature/God, take your pick) to house the fetus during that stage of the human life cycle.
Quote:
As long as you do NOT accept my point of view (doing with THE OWN body whatever she wants to), your example has no value. Except the nose of this "somebody" is also part of your body
Sure it does. You said, "It is her FREE WILL to decide about her body." I agree as long as it does not harm another human life.
The fetus is not part of her body because he has different DNA. The fetus is a separate human life according to science. Of course you are free to reject science and hold to your opinion.
Quote:
You clearly said: Yes but SHE put the fetus there
And I said: NO.
Having sex =/= pregnant!
Her body is a part of her, so yes, she put the fetus there.
Quote:
Nobody is carrying about the quality life of a child if he was unwanted?
If it is right to murder an unwanted child in the womb it is right to bash in the head of unwanted children who have been born. Is that what you are advocating?
Oh, and who gets to decide what "quality of life" is worth living? What is the basis for that judgment?
Hellen Keller was blind and deaf. Should society have murdered her "for her own good?"
Quote:
EDIT: and the term pro-life was on debate, so it is certainly on-topic on the subject of abortion. If the death penalty is something you agree upon, than the term pro-life is definitely ill-fitting. Likewise if you apporve of war.
So you won't mind if I call your side "pro death" because you are in favor of the death of unborn children. Or maybe "anti-birth", or "anti-baby" or "anti-father's rights."
"Pro-life" specificly refers to the abortion issue. There is no comparison between murdering an innocent baby and [edit:executing] a murderer. PRO-LIFE is very fitting in the abortion debate. We are in favor of the child living. Your side places no value on the life of the child. You called the child a tumor, cancer, and a parasite. So I guess you think you were once a cancer.
Quote:
A fully functional brain is a fully functional brain, generally we talk about motor skills, processing skills and memory. I don't really include motor skills. I won't use the word 'normal', because there is no such thing.
So mentally handicapped people are sub-human? Alzeheimer's victims are "sub-human?"
The fact is the human DNA tells us those people are human, just like the DNA of a fetus tells us that person is human.
@JJ
Will you accept the responsibility for the woman who suffers Post Abortion Syndrome and commits suicide as a result?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you won't mind if I call your side "pro death" because you are in favor of the death of unborn children. Or maybe "anti-birth", or "anti-baby" or "anti-father's rights."
"Pro-life" specificly refers to the abortion issue. There is no comparison between murdering an innocent baby and a murderer. PRO-LIFE is very fitting in the abortion debate. We are in favor of the child living. Your side places no value on the life of the child. You called the child a tumor, cancer, and a parasite. So I guess you think you were once a cancer.
No time for butchering the english language here. Just putting debates on terms and though I may sound provocative, I do not intend to insult... a lot. It's either for laughs or to understand your opinion mostly. n the end we don't understand eachother on purpose anyway.
Alright, now we've got that out of the way, of course, I was a cancer once. I could even call you a cancer now, but that would be insukting and serve no purpose
And I never said they are cancers, I was testing your definition to things like viruses and cancers and they seemed to fit, so I concluded that was true. then you insinuate me a monster and go away, thinking you are superior, but in the end I am forced to assume that the foetus which you call so sacred is apparently a human, just because it is a human. I have difficulty accepting that and you say science proves it to be so, but mytical mentioned there is discussion about even being life there and if so can we honestly call it human?
Also, on the terms. I do not condone war, nor the death penalty, so me being pro-death is a wrong term. I am anti-father's right, because it's the mother's choice. The time of the patri familias is over. I am not anti-baby, because babies are human beings, not their bone structures. Anti-birth is also unfitting because I condone birth and think it's a wondrous occasion. i just think there's little to no inherent value to a fertilised egg.
So call me anti-father's right, becaus ein the end we have no rights, but w/e let's roll with it.
I can't call you pro-life honestly, after we've seen some political opinions of you, so I'll call you pro-bearing machine.
Diplomacy is fun!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You sure, you want to enter the interesting area of comparing the worth of lifes? You might end finding your way through some smoke stack tht way.
Well, I do know that many people will not feel the same when a criminal dies than when a completely innocent and honest person dies. There is no such thing as "equal life" because life actually represents actions (or else it wouldn't be alive, it would be static... or dead). Based on the choices and actions, we can determine the life of a person.
I'm sorry if you think that me not mourning the death of a rapist or serial killer or anything like that makes me a hypocrite or something bad. (this is extreme, since many crimes do not deserve death, like simple theft for instance -- I'm not that black and white lol).
I'm not exactly pro-death-penalty for those people -- but IF they die, I don't consider them a loss at all, compared to an innocent person. (but let's not get into the death penalty discussion as I'm sure Elodin would go on it ).
I can't for a life of it imagine why you are calling a fetus a completely innocent and honest person and a mid-40-year-old who never did anything evil in her life a serial killer. Life worth less? I think you are losing it again.
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder now about how you will compare the two cases. You mean, if you allow a woman to abort a fetus you can just as well allow people to sacrifice their children? You say in all earnest that aborting a fetus is the same than sacrificing a child?
Do you think that?
In that case I would like to hear under which conditions you WOULD allow a child sacrifice, since if I interpret you right there ARE circumstances for you under which abortion is ok. So? When is it ok to sacrifice a child then?
No you got the analogy wrong. I meant that the argument (not sure if you used it) that "the child will have a bad life" is worthless because of the above.
If you are not sure someone uses a point then why are you "answering" it? How about trying to answer the question at hand instead tryng to sneak away?
Quote:
I don't actually allow abortions, because they always punish somebody -- and that somebody is the person responsible for the fetus being there. If it's a rapist, then abortion isn't "allowed", it's just that the guilt will be on the rapist.
Please understand that in my viewpoint, there is no such thing as "allowed" or "disallowed". It's just on WHO you place the blame.
For example, let's say you start to shoot in random directions -- the blame will be on you fully if you shoot somebody in the process. If someone forced you to shoot in random directions, or even worse, forced you to directly kill somebody, then you are free of blame.
Important is just on who you place the blame? What about the consequences? Are they unimportant? What about the people involved? Unimportant? Who cares about the blame when it's ALWAYS the same part that will CARRY THE BURDEN?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 13, 2009 11:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now we have "TheDeath-time" again...
Could you ONE time stick to what you have said and NOT change your point of view when you realize you are "trapped"?
You clearly said: Yes but SHE put the fetus there
And I said: NO.
Having sex =/= pregnant!
Yes SHE PUTS the fetus there. Her actions put the fetus there. If she doesn't DO ANYTHING the fetus WILL NOT BE PLACED THERE EVER. Unless she is raped of course.
She does something --> outcome can turn out BECAUSE OF HER ACTIONS. So she is directly responsible for her actions.
Or are you saying you've known women who got pregnant (without being raped) and doing nothing?
You know, with YOUR logic, I could say that I can pull a trigger, and I don't kill anyone with a gun, the bullet does. All I do is pull the trigger right? I don't kill anyone, so how come I am responsible for the deaths of those I shot? All I do is "pull the trigger".
Why do you always exclude rape? Following YOUR logic, killing a fetus is killing a fetus. Is it the fault of the fetus his mom got raped?
A kill is a kill. Either she is allowed to do it, or not.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 12:47 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:50, 14 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
I can't for a life of it imagine why you are calling a fetus a completely innocent and honest person and a mid-40-year-old who never did anything evil in her life a serial killer. Life worth less? I think you are losing it again.
What mid-40-year-old? Are we talking about rape or not?
Of course she does something, if you are talking about abortion (aka the point of this thread), then she does something, and it was the point of all discussions here
Quote:
Important is just on who you place the blame? What about the consequences? Are they unimportant? What about the people involved? Unimportant? Who cares about the blame when it's ALWAYS the same part that will CARRY THE BURDEN?
Well I value justice over subjective well-being. To be fair at least you don't need much moral burden to subjectively measure some stuff.
I don't know what you mean by carrying the burden, since the rapist will get the murder, and she can abort if she wants. In the other case well, it's entirely her fault -- and the man, if he forced her into abortion or whatever. Yes I know it may sound a bit sexist, but it's not my fault that only women can get pregnant. (not to mention that if she doesn't abort and doesn't get charged with murder of fetus, the man should support the child, but that's another story).
Quote:
Why do you always exclude rape? Following YOUR logic, killing a fetus is killing a fetus. Is it the fault of the fetus his mom got raped?
A kill is a kill. Either she is allowed to do it, or not.
You know, people usually can't be charged for something they had no choice whatsoever over (including actions that can lead to it). For instance, someone completely paralyzed can't get much guilt.
I "exclude" rape because the guilt will not go on the woman. If she aborts, the murder will be on the rapist. You see, I do not exclude rape at all from murder. It's just that I switch the charge from the woman to the rapist.
If someone comes into your house and hooks someone else to you, you are not obliged to save that other person -- if you decide to abort, he will die, and the person who hooked him to you will be charged for it.
However, if you "invite" this person to your house and hook him to you (so he can't survive outside your house until 9 months), you have a responsibility to keep him alive until he can go outside. You can't kick him out when it was you who brought him here in the first place -- but in rape case, it was not YOU who brought it in that place. See?
There is no "exception" it's just simple following of logical rules (logical because it applies to any other area in law, not just to abortion)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 02:24 AM |
|
|
Adoration.constipation.Idiocressy.
the 3 parallels to the name of this thread.
Question. If a six months of arguments lead to no solution why continue debating? you are repeating your arguments over and over. sides will never be changed. as one does not see's clearly the other side. some country's it's illegal some country its god's work. but if to debate gods existence is on another thread. if i say i think a child under 6 weeks is not a child but an organism, would that make me inhumane?
Cell research may help humane medical and sceinece whole lot. using flesh as a utility to make others feel better.. why not? it's good in te long term. and don't talk about ethics..
you know in the medieval times they thought that shedding blood fixes every possible illness. how do you think they realized its not correct?
in 1920's and 1940's people thought that be giving men goat testicles it would cure male depression. why did they stop it? where autopsy's ethical?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 07:21 AM |
|
|
@ Death
Why don't you start reading the posts you are commenting on? If you think that my examples were all about rape then you can't have read the post at all.
Moreover you are not answering questions, if people ask them. I wouldn't call that discussing.
I agree with angelito. There isn't really much more to say about this.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 09:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And I never said they are cancers, I was testing your definition to things like viruses and cancers and they seemed to fit, so I concluded that was true. then you insinuate me a monster and go away, thinking you are superior, but in the end I am forced to assume that the foetus which you call so sacred is apparently a human, just because it is a human. I have difficulty accepting that and you say science proves it to be so, but mytical mentioned there is discussion about even being life there and if so can we honestly call it human?
Errrr. I did not call you a monster. I did not say I am superior. I did not say a fetus is sacred because then I would get accused of bringing religion into the argument.
I said that the human DNA PROVES the fetus is human. The fetus is the product of human sex. The union of a human egg and human sperm.
The fetus is the early stage of the human life cycle.
Argue that the fetus is not human all you want. The fact is the fetus is human. It is not a dog, cat , horse, or alien from the planet Valtar.
If you can't understand that, please have a talk with Mommy and Daddy and they'll help you understand human reproduction. 
Quote:
I can't call you pro-life honestly, after we've seen some political opinions of you, so I'll call you pro-bearing machine.
I am pro-innocent life. I don't mind the preditors being executed. You are anti-innocent rights. You don't think all innocents have a right to live.
And I reject your idea that fathers have no rights. It takes two to tango. The father should have equal rights.
Quote:
A kill is a kill. Either she is allowed to do it, or not.
Yep, if she can kill the baby in the womb logic would say she should be able to kill the baby out of the womb. If she can't kill a born baby should should not be able to kill an unborn baby.
I say she doesn't have a riht to kill the innocent human life either before or after it is born.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 10:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's your opinion. My opinion differs. Life of a human starts (imho!) with the first breath outside of the woman's body.
I can only assume your opinion is a religious opinion because science says otherwise. You entitled to your religious beliefs.
Would you please stop mentioning religion in this thread? Only because I am more into science than into religion doesn't mean I follow science with BLIND EYES (like religious fanatcis do...). I am still free to have my own opinion about specific cases, in opposit to religious people, who NEVER have a different choice than what is written in their bible/quoran etc..!
Quote:
Quote:
This is not the question here. We are NOT talking about what will be in....years. We are talking about the situation when the fetus is INSIDE the body of the woman. Outside, it is NOT part of her anymore, therefore she doesn't have the right anymore to do whatever she wants to.
Yes, it is the question. The fetus is in the early stages of the human life cycle. At that stage the human life is supposed to be in the womb. The womb was designed (by nature/God, take your pick) to house the fetus during that stage of the human life cycle.
This is how nature works all over the planet. Just check how antelopes or bisons act when a baby is born: This baby has just a few minutes to show if it is able to stand on its feet by itself. If it fails, it will be left behind. Nothing else but a late abortion. And in such a case, the baby already left the mom's body!
Quote:
Quote:
As long as you do NOT accept my point of view (doing with THE OWN body whatever she wants to), your example has no value. Except the nose of this "somebody" is also part of your body
Sure it does. You said, "It is her FREE WILL to decide about her body." I agree as long as it does not harm another human life.
This is where we both disagree. For me, human life starts at a different point than yours.
Quote:
The fetus is not part of her body because he has different DNA. The fetus is a separate human life according to science. Of course you are free to reject science and hold to your opinion.
Exactly 
Quote:
Quote:
You clearly said: Yes but SHE put the fetus there
And I said: NO.
Having sex =/= pregnant!
Her body is a part of her, so yes, she put the fetus there.
Don't you agree with me, there are actions the body does by its own without the human acting actively? Or does the woman act actively when she starts bleeding during her period?
Quote:
The fact is the human DNA tells us those people are human, just like the DNA of a fetus tells us that person is human.
And what argument did you have 25 years ago, where no knowledge about DNA was present?
Quote:
Will you accept the responsibility for the woman who suffers Post Abortion Syndrome and commits suicide as a result?
Her own decision. If she wants to end her life...its HER life. Suicide is NOT illegal
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 14, 2009 11:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Would you please stop mentioning religion in this thread?
Errrr. I'm not the one who has been bringing religion into the thread. I merely was wondering if your beliefs were derived from religion since they are in opposition to known science.
Quote:
Only because I am more into science than into religion doesn't mean I follow science with BLIND EYES (like religious fanatcis do...).
So you cherry pick science?
Oh, I follow Christ in faith (which sees spiritual realities), not by blind eyes.
Quote:
This is how nature works all over the planet. Just check how antelopes or bisons act when a baby is born: This baby has just a few minutes to show if it is able to stand on its feet by itself. If it fails, it will be left behind. Nothing else but a late abortion. And in such a case, the baby already left the mom's body!
Some animals eat their young. Are you advocating that women should be allowd to eat their babies?
I say to save babies that are born sick or handicapped. I am sad that you evidently don't feel the same way.
Quote:
This is where we both disagree. For me, human life starts at a different point than yours.
Ok. My belief is based on science and yours you said is based on your opinion. But you didn't give what your opinion is based on.
Quote:
Don't you agree with me, there are actions the body does by its own without the human acting actively? Or does the woman act actively when she starts bleeding during her period?
Sure, but it was still her body that put the fetus in her womb. It was her. The fetus is there as the natural result of human reproduction.
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is the human DNA tells us those people are human, just like the DNA of a fetus tells us that person is human.
And what argument did you have 25 years ago, where no knowledge about DNA was present?
The simplfe facts of human reproduction. Human REPRODUCTION. Humans come from human reproduction. Cats, pigs, pigeons, or turtles will not come from human reproduction.
As science has advanced, it just validates that simple straight forward fact.
Quote:
Quote:
Will you accept the responsibility for the woman who suffers Post Abortion Syndrome and commits suicide as a result?
Her own decision. If she wants to end her life...its HER life. Suicide is NOT illegal
I guess that would depend on where you live. Suicide is illegal in many places. Abortion will not prevent a raped woman from being depressed and indeed may very well cause more problems. It will solve none.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
