|
|
Post by MO on Mar 9, 2004 11:39:36 GMT -5
I don't equate cows with human life. To do so is sick beyond belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 9, 2004 19:42:46 GMT -5
Offering adoption as a "better" alternative presupposes that there is something wrong with abortion. This is true for you, but it is DEFINITELY not true for me. In my mind, it is a far superior option to prevent the existence of the child as soon as the failure of birth control becomes known than to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then give the kid away. Well I believe you may be confused. In the above statement you say that you wish to prevent the existence of the child as soon as the failure of birth control is evident, while in the below, you state that an unborn child wishes to continue its own existence. You may find it difficult to prevent something that is already there. Oh we agree: an unborn baby "wishes to exist," on the same plane that a cow does. Doesn't stop people from killing them, does it? Nor should it. Death is part of life. Do you finally understand? So you will kill a cow and you will kill an unborn child. However, you will not kill a born child. So when does this transition take place when suddenly a child's life is worth something more? At the third trimester, at the beginning of the birth process, once the umbilical cord is severed, or at the moment of conception? The fact that there are pro-lifers and would-be adoptees out there who might have an emotional attachment to my unborn, unwanted child is INSUFFICIENT standing for them to step in and force me to have it. Oh we agree: Its not outside people who can decide whether the child will live or die, but for that matter it is not the mother's (or father's) choice either. Nice try, if you could only swing it. Please explain why #4 is the only one that 'matters.' Note though, that whether 1-3 'matter' is arguable, i.e. they do not cease to 'matter' simply because you say so. You missed my point on the first three reasons. They do not matter to me because they do not apply to me. I answered the first three, leaveing the fourth for later. If my mother did not want me, if my family did not want me or wouild not miss me, or if my continued existence imposed burdens on those around me, oh well. In any of the cases I don't care what anyone else thinks, I wish to continue my existence. Selfish? Maybe, but as human beings no one person's life is worth any more than anyone elses. |
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 9, 2004 19:56:50 GMT -5
If pregnancy were perfectly preventable, I would have no problem with making abortion illegal. The only viable 100% birth control available now is abstinence. remedios, reread your first sentence. Your following statements show that you cannot accept that there is a way to make pregnancy perfctly preventable, that you do not like. |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 9, 2004 20:36:15 GMT -5
Care to explain why?
Forget it, it doesn't matter anyway, because human beings routinely kill other innocent human beings AND, incidentally, take special pleasure in having an "excuse" to kill another human, like the fact that the human has killed someone else.
It's all utter nonsense . . . unless, of course, you accept, as I do, that every animal on this planet makes calculated decisions to kill when necessary for it's survival or well-being.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 9, 2004 20:55:37 GMT -5
I stand corrected. I should have said that it's preferable to keep the child from being born, not to prevent it's existence. Although I don't see why you wasted your time with this one, as I have always stipulated that life begins at conception and that by having an abortion one is killing a living being. I simply see no difference between killing an unborn, unwanted baby within a reasonable time of conception and killing a cow or an innocent civilian during wartime.
I would not kill a born child, not because it's life is "worth" more, but because the mother has had her chance to terminate and chosen not to, thus demonstrating her desire for the child. Any child that has been born is wanted to one degree or another. That is what makes life valuable, not the aggregation of hydrocarbons, amides, and acids. After a certain point in pregnancy, the mother has allowed any interest she may have had in preventing the full pregnancy and birth to lapse to the extent that her inaction can be taken as acquiescence.
Yes it is. And thank god (colloquially of course) for that.
Really. Fascinating. Tell that to the rest of the world. As soon as they follow in tow, maybe the pro-life movement will have a leg to stand on. Until then, there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't be able to choose to terminate an incomplete, dependent life with no consciousness of itself if I don't want to support it.
What are you talking about? It's not that I just "don't like abstinence," it's that never having sex with my future husband is an ABSURD and UNNECESSARY thing to do, not to mention unhealthy and repressed. If I wanted to be abstinent, I would have become a nun . . and then perhaps molested some children.
Ridiculous!
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 10, 2004 23:22:04 GMT -5
a lot of arguing on this subject and i guess all i have to say is, the fetus has energy (scientific term) or a soul (religious term), as do humans. This energy (housed by the body) is what causes our bodies to function and is what surrounds us always and thus causes our bodies to LIVE. SO, to terminate this energy would be to terminate the Life, yes LIFE of a fetus/zygote driven to develop by this energy, seperate from the mother. It may not be able to think for itself at this point but it has energy and thus life nonetheless and THAT LIFE should be protected
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 11, 2004 8:50:05 GMT -5
Why? Just because it will end up looking like a human some months down the line? Just because in roughly two years it will finally have a sense of self-awareness?
Baloney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 12, 2004 15:34:25 GMT -5
Who's to say that a 6 month year old fetus doesn't pocess self-awareness but a one hour old baby does?  |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 15, 2004 20:45:41 GMT -5
Cognitive Psychology.
Actually, babies don't develop more self-awareness than a cow has until around 6 months of age.
Don't ask me why (if abortion's legal) it shouldn't be legal for a mother to kill her 2 month old then, because I've explained it elsewhere: reproductive rights are about being able to have power over when you have a baby. It is my opinion that if you haven't made that desire clear before the third trimester, you should have very limited chances to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 27, 2004 23:09:25 GMT -5
Due to your belief of how obviously similar cows and young children are, I suppose you would enjoy the occasional baby burger? After all, according to you, it's the same thing, right? You are a sick, sick person, and I feel like I should tell you this. Please don't ever attempt to procreate, as it will just result in a murder or two.  |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 28, 2004 15:40:56 GMT -5
I equate cows and unborn fetuses, not young children. And I equate them where their consciousness is concerned, not whether they would taste good.
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment, you ignorant fanatic.
Well, killing would be entirely more easy to avoid if a 100% effective form of birth control were available on request, now wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Mar 31, 2004 0:43:23 GMT -5
Hey, Joe: When you get pregnant, let us know. Men should have no say in what a woman can or can not do regarding abortion. I sometimes fear how many women I may have impregnated throughut the world in my youth and before marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 31, 2004 2:26:39 GMT -5
I think that's a sleazy cop-out way for men to dodge their responsibility. Some of the recent studies show that more men support abortion than women, and why wouldn't they? They can be absolved of all responsibility after they exploit someone, as you claim to have done all over the world. You don't know how many women you may have impregnated? How kind of you to stick around long enough to find out if she needs anything after she has spent the day with her feet in stirrups. You're right, YOU shouldn't have an opinion.  Your feminist sleaze-bag counter parts want it both ways. They want to ho around with impunity. Then when they decide they want to let a kid live, they want to soak some poor sod with eighteen years of child support. If it's her body, it should be her responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 31, 2004 10:58:57 GMT -5
Gosh, I love it when sexually repressed pro-lifers get all worked up about the good sex that everyone else is having with impunity that they are not.
Fact is that abortion is used for family planning by monogamously involved and married women alike. Fact is, no ho-ing around is required to end up with a baby you don't want.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 31, 2004 11:01:35 GMT -5
And it appears, from this quote, that you want to have your cake and eat it too: women should be forced to have children, if and when the men they sleep with are ready and willing to pay for the kids.
I'm shedding tears for your "poor sod," really, I am.
|
|
