Abortion

PaleRider · #11 (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squealer

If the baby don't care. I don't care

Since the child, if left alone, will continue to grow, it stands to reason that it has an interest in living. So since it has an interest in remaining alive, do you change your stance to one in which you care, or was your statement nothing more than lip service to a rather droll and inaccurate observation?

bububr · #12 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 04:09 PM

There are so many different variables, and each individual case is different.

I don't believe in abortion for a convenience, but I don't think a woman who does get pregnant should be denied the right to terminate during the first trimester if they are not financially, emotionally, or physically stable.

Sometimes accidents do happen, and before the situation turns into a dire one, I believe in the right to terminate.

I also find that adolescents that get pregnant and then the parents or grandparents have to raise the child/children are only reinforcing bad behavior.

This is a very personal decision and should not be decided as a blanket decision.

Unfortunately this has become a religious reason for many feeling that they are 'murdering' a life. It would be nice if they remembered that 'fornicators' will not enter the kindom of heaven.....so they are SOL already. Cut your losses while you can if possible, if not get steralized because I'm tired of paying taxes to subsidize unwanted children be it welfare, social security, or the school system.

Dave

T_Ereponemos · #13 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

What you "feel" is irrelavent. What you can prove is what is important.

How you "see" a thing is irrelavent as well. Clearly, you don't know what does and what doesn't constutute a parasite so your view is pointless. Can you substantiate your view with anything that resembles credible science?

Is comparing a human being to an insect really the best you can do? If that represents your best shot, why bother at all?

To clear up the "I feel" sentence starters, I'm merely stating that it is my opinion and NOT a fact though it very well could be.

Parasite(as a scientific word) was not a good word for the label. I'm merely saying that if the woman wants it to stop growing at her expense, why should she not be given an option?

The comparison to an insect was merely showing that we still are similar to any animal, be it a fish, insect, bear etc. Granted a woman devouring a born baby is certainly a form of murder.

To sum up all of this, I'm saying that the woman will and should always have the choice in it all because the person it ultimately affects is her.

PaleRider · #14 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

To clear up the "I feel" sentence starters, I'm merely stating that it is my opinion and NOT a fact though it very well could be.

Unsurprising. The pro choice argument in its entirety is based on feelings. If you restricted your argument to the facts, your entire argument could be stated as follows:

"I (state your name) favor allowing women to kill their children, without legal consequence, for any or no reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

Parasite(as a scientific word) was not a good word for the label. I'm merely saying that if the woman wants it to stop growing at her expense, why should she not be given an option?

A parasite is what it is and if you need half a dozen or a dozen specific reasons that an unborn can not be accurately characterized as a parasite, ask, and I will gladly provide them for you.

Why should she not be given the option? Because the child is a living human being, that is why. Why should your neighbor not be given the option to kill you because you let your dog take a dump in his flower beds? Because you are a human being and your right to live outweighs any right anyone cares to invoke so long as you don't represent an iminent threat to their life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

The comparison to an insect was merely showing that we still are similar to any animal, be it a fish, insect, bear etc. Granted a woman devouring a born baby is certainly a form of murder.

Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Can you prove in any credible way that an unborn at any stage of development is something other than a human being?

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos

To sum up all of this, I'm saying that the woman will and should always have the choice in it all because the person it ultimately affects is her.

Logica fallacy. Your argument begs the question and must assume that the unborn is not a living human being who is also effected to a greater degree than the woman. This is the sort of argument I addressed at the beginning. The pro choice argument is based entirely on lies, distortions, half truths, and logical fallacies. Can you present even one rational argument for abortion that is none of those things? Think about it carefully, run your arguments through your head and answer with an honest "no".

Squealer · #15 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Since the child, if left alone, will continue to grow, it stands to reason that it has an interest in living. So since it has an interest in remaining alive, do you change your stance to one in which you care, or was your statement nothing more than lip service to a rather droll and inaccurate observation?

I was talking about fetuses buddy. The baby doesnt have a conscionious inside the womb. Or one enough to care.

PaleRider · #16 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squealer

I was talking about fetuses buddy. The baby doesnt have a conscionious inside the womb. Or one enough to care.

Neither does a newborn but they enjoy the protection of the law. One doesn't need to be conscious in order to have an interest in living.

TakuanSoho · #17 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Neither does a newborn but they enjoy the protection of the law. One doesn't need to be conscious in order to have an interest in living.

Gotta to draw a line somewhere. I prefer the first trimester, giving the woman a choice in the matter. After that, only woman's life should be reason for an abortion.

wyatt earp · #18 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Gotta to draw a line somewhere. I prefer the first trimester, giving the woman a choice in the matter. After that, only woman's life should be reason for an abortion.

But then how do you stop it? You can make all the laws you like, to make your self feel good, but people will still break it.

The only way to stop abortion's is through education, is through providing protection ie.. condom's to kids etc..etc.. You can not put your head in the sand and tell them to just say NO.

T_Ereponemos · #19 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Unsurprising. The pro choice argument in its entirety is based on feelings. If you restricted your argument to the facts, your entire argument could be stated as follows:

"I (state your name) favor allowing women to kill their children, without legal consequence, for any or no reason.

A parasite is what it is and if you need half a dozen or a dozen specific reasons that an unborn can not be accurately characterized as a parasite, ask, and I will gladly provide them for you.

Why should she not be given the option? Because the child is a living human being, that is why. Why should your neighbor not be given the option to kill you because you let your dog take a dump in his flower beds? Because you are a human being and your right to live outweighs any right anyone cares to invoke so long as you don't represent an iminent threat to their life.

Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Can you prove in any credible way that an unborn at any stage of development is something other than a human being?

Logica fallacy. Your argument begs the question and must assume that the unborn is not a living human being who is also effected to a greater degree than the woman. This is the sort of argument I addressed at the beginning. The pro choice argument is based entirely on lies, distortions, half truths, and logical fallacies. Can you present even one rational argument for abortion that is none of those things? Think about it carefully, run your arguments through your head and answer with an honest "no".

It may be murder but it is not my place to get in their way of exploiting technology to their own benefit. Without them it cannot live, like a comatose relative, or a dieing pet, therefore they should ultimately be allowed to choose it's life or death. It's life can become agony as the underage mother plummets into debt and can barely keep her and her child alive. Necessary sacrifices, it's for the soon to be child

Please, at least give me 3 reasons that it's not parasitism, Argument aside, I really am curious so if you can convince me I will relabel it with no question.

My neighbor was not the reason for my conception nor is the soul purpose of my existence.

PaleRider · #20 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Gotta to draw a line somewhere. I prefer the first trimester, giving the woman a choice in the matter. After that, only woman's life should be reason for an abortion.

The child is nothing after the first trimester that it wasn't during the first except older and more mature. Our level of maturity isn't the basis for our right to live.