Ender
Beagle
Change
Posts: 6
|
Post by Ender on Feb 2, 2004 19:10:38 GMT -5
I'm sure everyone can agree that at the moment of conception whatever you wish to call the foetus, it is alive. Simply, abortion kills " it". If you are ready to kill something you must also be prepared to kill what it has the potential to become becasue you are killing its chances to become anything. As I have started before, if you are ready to kill that foetus would you be willing to kill it the day after birth? The day when it becomes a person? How about 20 years after its birth? If not then is abortion truely just a way to kill the being before anyone can see it and become emotionally attached to it? Maybe we can get it over with soon enough that no one will care... Although we may never admit this. ABORTION is good.....it has always been good. Now it's even better because they can use the fetal tissue for Stem Cell Research which may cure the living. To hell with fetal tissue. How selfish are we. We are alive thats more than we can say for what would have become of those stem cells. To justify murder by saying that maybe we can live a few more years if only we kill a few more unborn children. If the only way to get these stem cell was to kill 5 year olds would you be so ready to extend your own life? How can anybody assume that a child that is not wanted by it's mother even wants to live? There is no guarantee that it's life would be safe, happy or productive and nobody asked to be born anyway. Evidence for this can be found in the suicide rates among people today. If you pro lifers feel so strongly about this, why don't you go adopt some poor, unwanted down syndrome baby that almost got aborted? Nobody has ever asked to be born, and we assume that a child wants to be born because of the same principles as innocent until proven guilty. I ask honestly hasn't there been a moment in everyones life when they consider even for a second, suicide? I know there was a time when I did. But thats life we struggle and life gets better. I close with one more statement: Would you give your parents the right to have an abortion if you knew that you would die? That you would be in your mother's womb and be murdered? Would you still argue so strongly that abortion is just? |
|
|
|
Post by ukbushgirl on Feb 3, 2004 13:32:23 GMT -5
Just because some people are suicidal does not mean to say many unborn babies will be. Suicide is hardly a matter for sane people- they tend to be manic depressives and since the only danger in the womb is being killed/miscarraiged and the baby is unaware of these things until they start then the baby is not going to be unhappy enough to kill him/herself
|
|
rightwingconspiritor
Guest
|
Post by rightwingconspiritor on Feb 4, 2004 17:45:45 GMT -5
I was awed by the vastness of this discussion and therefore have not read all replies, so if the point I'm about to make was made at an earlier time, please accept me sincerest apology.
Abortion stops the process of growth. Without abortion the fetus would continue to develop until it exited the mothers womb. There is no organism on the earth that grows or develops without any presence of life, no matter how slight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Feb 4, 2004 21:09:39 GMT -5
I was awed by the vastness of this discussion and therefore have not read all replies, so if the point I'm about to make was made at an earlier time, please accept me sincerest apology. Abortion stops the process of growth. Without abortion the fetus would continue to develop until it exited the mothers womb. There is no organism on the earth that grows or develops without any presence of life, no matter how slight. That's certainly a good point. I think either way though, that people shouldnt just assume that the child has no will to live. Don't disabled people enjoy life? Surely it must be a bit harder, but life is good, for the most part. |
|
|
|
Post by TheFog on Feb 9, 2004 23:23:19 GMT -5
Go to [glow=red,2,300]www.cafeshops.com/usholocaust[/glow] for Pro-Life Merchandise.
|
|
|
|
Post by raja on Mar 16, 2004 22:36:05 GMT -5
i agree with righwingconspiritor, and i've tried to point that out in another post, as you said, anything that is growing or developing contains life as little as there may be, it has energy or a soul. Just as trees and nature grows, these things may not talk or have minds but they are declared living things with purposes just as i feel ANYTHING alive, including a fetus, has purpose and energy and thus...LIFE.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 16, 2004 23:17:37 GMT -5
What is the "purpose" of human beings? I believe there is one, but I do not believe it is just to "live."
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 17, 2004 23:18:31 GMT -5
Well in a completely biological sense our purpose is just to live. Society has created a need for social improvement. But in the rawest sense, human beings only real purpose is to exist.
By the way "rightwingconspiritor" was me before I registered. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 19, 2004 14:28:15 GMT -5
Well in a completely biological sense our purpose is just to live. Society has created a need for social improvement. But in the rawest sense, human beings only real purpose is to exist.
I agree. I also argue that when pro-lifers argue that we should care more about an unwanted, unborn first trimester baby simply because it's "life," they are suggesting that we should return to the most crude purpose humans have: the biological imperative to reproduce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 19, 2004 15:24:48 GMT -5
Most crude? Or most basic, and what make us what we are?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 19, 2004 15:40:24 GMT -5
I don't know why you continue the back and forth with this argument. You clearly are not going to successfully point out the moral problems with abortion to someone who finds moral relevancy between abortion and slaughtering cows for food. I'm saving myself for someone not quite so hopeless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 20, 2004 17:01:39 GMT -5
That's true. Remedios has that incurable Third Reich streak to her.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 20, 2004 20:07:22 GMT -5
I agree Mo, but one more try just for kicks and giggles. I also argue that when pro-lifers argue that we should care more about an unwanted, unborn first trimester baby simply because it's "life," they are suggesting that we should return to the most crude purpose humans have: the biological imperative to reproduce.Does this "crude" purpose we have not include the crude pupose to have sex, whether resulting in reprouduction or not? If pregnancy were perfectly preventable, I would have no problem with making abortion illegal. The only viable 100% birth control available now is abstinence. |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 21, 2004 13:42:36 GMT -5
Ender312:
I'm going to let you finish your apparently unfinished post before I answer.
Mo:
Many people do not see a moral difference between having an abortion and slaughtering a cow. They think both of these acts siginificant. They find you objectionable because you think slaughtering a cow less significant than kill an unborn, unwanted baby.
i.e. THIS is the argument. If you can't manage, you've already lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ube on Mar 21, 2004 15:05:48 GMT -5
remedios: Many people do not see a moral difference between having an abortion and slaughtering a cow. They think both of these acts siginificant. They find you objectionable because you think slaughtering a cow less significant than kill an unborn, unwanted baby.Are you really sure that you want to state THIS as your argument to end all arguments? There are many issues you have not addressed and ones you have, have been taken very lightly. There are a lot of things I am unclear on. Firstly, if there is no difference between slaughtering a cow and an unborn child, what is the difference between slaughtering a cow and a child that is a minute old, a day old, a year old, etc? If it is based merely on the fact that the unborn child is unwanted, does that mean we should be funding meat rendering plants as opposed to orphanages to deal with children who are given up for adoption? Your argument seems to be rooted in the fact that your conception of the purpose of life is based on your personal beliefs or what you feel. I'm sorry, but 'feelings' are not arguments. When you state a metaphysical purpose to live (ie. just to live) as a biological concept, you are the one who seems to not be able to manage your argument. *added* I've read over more of your past posts and it seems you want a secular argument for why abortion is wrong. If you read my other posts on other threads (ie. Born with it?) you'll see that I'm not very religious at all. I see abortion as wrong from the perspective of a biology major not as a christian. This should prove to be an interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to it.  |
|
