TFARCHIVE FORUMS

Originally posted by Warcry
I already regret this...

Originally posted by Warcry

I already regret this...

Originally posted by Redstreak
My viewpoint? I honestly don't know. I've heard people on all sides, from life to choice to in-between, that being in certain instances it is ok...like rape.

And well you should...maybe it'll get deleted before SHE shows up though...

As well you should, once Sheba gets hold of this topic...

Originally posted by Divebomb
Being a guy is good when it comes to these choices because we don't have to make these choices and therefore are not not left thinkin about them for the rest of our lives.

it shouldn't be just because you don't want it. It should be because you think it would be worse for the child to live. Like you can't feed it or it would be harmed just by being alive.

Originally posted by Galvatron84
I think abortion is murder.

That's rubbish, they can always have the child adopted, which is surely better than not giving it a life at all?

Originally posted by Plasmodium
Indeed, id much rather choose adoption.

So, how many pages you think this will turn out to be? Six? Eight?

the "life from conception" point is pathetically ridiculous

That being said...is a fetus alive? Yeah.

Is it a stage of human development? Yeah.
Is a child a stage of human development? Yeah.
Is a human child, human? Yeah.
Is a human fetus, human? Yeah.
Is killing a human child wrong? Yeah.
Is killing a fetus wrong. Yeah...

I am Pro-life.

Next, IF a fetus IS alive, which was part of your initial premise, then the fetus has different DNA from the mother, and it is NOT her body. We already have a ton of laws dictating what someone can not do with their body (granted, I want to see most, of not all resinded). If the fetus is alive, then it is not the woman's, via our constitution, where ownership of other humans has thankfully been outlawed.

Originally posted by Sir Auros

1-A lot of you don't know what it's like to be in the lower class, so it's really easy for you to say that abortions are wrong and that any life is better than no life...it's not. There are far too many unwanted children coming into this already grossly overpopulated world each year and nearly all of them are being brought into families (or usually) the care of a person who is financially and emotionally incapable of caring for a child. There are just so many kids out there who suffer throughout their lives because their parents had them when they couldn't support or care for them.

And the child should be punished for our economic problems why?
This seems more of a sociological problem. That is why are many children born into low income situations? And why there still exists so many low income families. But none of this points towards killing the child as a "correct" solution.

2-Even if you believe in a soul, how can you believe that God would just let a soul die in the womb like that? I would believe that if someone were to abort the fetus, then God would take that soul and put it in the next available fetus. Why the hell wouldn't he?

Then by that logic it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone since God will simply move his or her soul into a new body. Surely you don't accept that?

3-As usual, in issues like this I tend to agree with Denyer, in that if it's not something that can be birthed and survive on its own, it's not a human yet.

Show me one instance where a newborn can surivive on its own. Or heck even a toddler. If that is the criteria you use than the definition of human only extends to about the age of 13 or so, no lower. Probably higher than that. Heck people who are disabled, or have psychological diseases couldn't survive on their own. Are they not human then?

The whole life and conception and birth thing is a slippery slope, and if you really believe that it's a human being when little Mr. Sperm goes inside Little Miss Egg and thus believe that a human being is merely the POTENTIAL for life, then every time you jerk it, you're killing billions (usually, unless you're count's low) of potential people, and by your own logic are usually just as "bad" as someone who goes out and gets an abortion. Likewise, women using birth control are killing that potential for life every month...hell, if you think about it, even women living their lives naturally eject the potential (egg) every month.

Sperm or ova by themselves have no chance of becoming a human being. A zyogte/fetus/ or just conceived egg does. That is the difference.

4-We have enough people, and with the sickening state the world is in, if I were calling the shots, I'd have everyone on birth control from puberty up until adulthood, then tested thoroughly to see if they'd be fit for parenting, if not, sterilization. Yes, I'm a cynic.

That's a different matter. More a sociological one. Why is the world in the shape that it is, and why do we let it continue to be so. However as previously stated why should the child pay the price?

5-I have a strong conviction about the moral "correctness" of abortion, and I HAVE argued this issue thoroughly and I've heard most of what there is to hear, and this is the conclusion I've reached. Basically, it would be really really hard for you to sway me because I've made an educated decision on the matter, so don't fill up my pm box with crap that does nothing but tell me I'm wrong, or repeats the more typical pro-life arguments.

It seems to me that pro-"choice" (And I use that term loosely since the child has no choice in the matter, and really it is just pro-death) has as it's major argument the dehumanization of our very children. How is it that we as a society can be so outraged over the death of a child (Maryland Sniper Case) yet not be so over the death of the unborn? Seems like a case of doublespeak to me...two contradictory principles that are packaged for society to consume and accept as true...You either respect life, or you don't. If you don't hold our own children to be human, then what makes any person human? The fact that they have more brain cells? That seems laughable. Heck through a simple soritical argument it is easy to see that there can be no distinction made between a newborn and an adult or a fetus in terms of it's intrinsic humanity. You can go around and say that since it can't support itself it is not human, but that doesn't work. You can say that since it doesn't have enough cells it isn't human. But that doesn't work either. Is there some threshold at which point it has "enough" brain cells to be considered human? I'd dearly love to know what that is, as would most scientists. A brain is an organ that regulates the body. Just because at conception that body only consists of a few cells doesn't mean that it's job is any different.

You either respect human life fully, or you don't respect it at all. Otherwise it is just plain hypocritical.

Originally posted by Strafe in a really annoying format:
And the child should be punished for our economic problems why?
This seems more of a sociological problem. That is why are many children born into low income situations? And why there still exists so many low income families. But none of this points towards killing the child as a "correct" solution.

That's assuming you think the mass of tissue is a child at that point, I don't, so I see nothing wrong with it. To me, THAT keeps the child from being punished for our economic problems.

Then by that logic it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone since God will simply move his or her soul into a new body. Surely you don't accept that?

Ha! I don't even care about theology, that was just hypothetical bs, and it was referring to the idea that since the child wasn't born, it's soul didn't really come into the world or something like that. That God would take just anyone's soul and put it in another body doesn't fit with your religion anyway, and that was the religion I was coming up with hypothetical ideas for.

Show me one instance where a newborn can surivive on its own. Or heck even a toddler. If that is the criteria you use than the definition of human only extends to about the age of 13 or so, no lower. Probably higher than that. Heck people who are disabled, or have psychological diseases couldn't survive on their own. Are they not human then?

Poor wording on my part. By being able to survive on its own, I meant that the mother could birth it naturally and it would be able to live without having to go into a machine that simulates the womb until it's fully cooked.

Sperm or ova by themselves have no chance of becoming a human being. A zyogte/fetus/ or just conceived egg does. That is the difference.

Still, the slippery slope is often taken to the sperm and eggs as well (see the Catholic Church's current stance on birth control and their rationale) AND how can you believe that a human being is formed in all it's potential when the egg and sperm join? It's for that reason that I say that it's human when it's born or when it could be born without the aid of machines.

That's a different matter. More a sociological one. Why is the world in the shape that it is, and why do we let it continue to be so. However as previously stated why should the child pay the price?

As I said before, it's not a child, so there's no price to pay. Overpopulation and an increase in unfit parents certainly doesn't help the situation.

It seems to me that pro-"choice" (And I use that term loosely since the child has no choice in the matter, and really it is just pro-death) has as it's major argument the dehumanization of our very children. How is it that we as a society can be so outraged over the death of a child (Maryland Sniper Case) yet not be so over the death of the unborn? Seems like a case of doublespeak to me...two contradictory principles that are packaged for society to consume and accept as true...You either respect life, or you don't. If you don't hold our own children to be human, then what makes any person human? The fact that they have more brain cells? That seems laughable. Heck through a simple soritical argument it is easy to see that there can be no distinction made between a newborn and an adult or a fetus in terms of it's intrinsic humanity. You can go around and say that since it can't support itself it is not human, but that doesn't work. You can say that since it doesn't have enough cells it isn't human. But that doesn't work either. Is there some threshold at which point it has "enough" brain cells to be considered human? I'd dearly love to know what that is, as would most scientists. A brain is an organ that regulates the body. Just because at conception that body only consists of a few cells doesn't mean that it's job is any different.

You either respect human life fully, or you don't respect it at all. Otherwise it is just plain hypocritical.

We can care because of the difference in the stage of development. Guess what Strafe, some people don't agree with you and they actually believe a child's not a child until it's born, THAT's why they don't care about fetuses, but they do care about a living human being. The argument here boils down to "When is a human a human?" and there's no way it can ever be resolved because it ends up being an argument over a definition and ethics. Also, get out of your ivory tower and see the world for once, do you see the problems that are being caused by overpopulation, do you see the cycle of violence and poverty that children born to parents who can't care for them cause, do you see all the foster parents out there who are only doing it for the money the government pays them to do it, do you see any of that? If you did, I would find it VERY hard to believe that you would WANT more children to come into this world without good homes. I find that more repulsive and heartless than you probably find my beliefs.

Finally, I didn't want to come back into this, but I saw that you had responded, and then I had to defend myself from your accusations of hypocrisy.