|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 5:17 am
They are biased based on the idea that what they believe is correct, i mean, for example:
"Pro-Choice people aren't against making choices, whereas pro-life people are. Pro-Choice people are compassionate because we think about the mother and her situation. And do you really think the child would like to have been born into a family that wasn't ready for it?"
Thats a f*cking weak argument. Excuse me, but "compassionate"? More like selfish. They care for one being but not the other? Because the other one isn't as developed, but still human? Because it looks a bit different? Thats prejudice. Thats ignorant.
That whole belief is based on the idea that the baby isn't alive or is incapable of feeling pain. They only convince themselves of that because they'd rather silently kill someone else rather than burden themselves with another life to take care of. If people think like that, whats to keep us from just eutanizing our retired senior citizens?
Not to mention, i think pro-lifers are exponently smarter. Think about it. They (Pro-choice people) base their decisions on a personal opinion, could be right, could be wrong.
But we (Pro-life people) side on the side of life. Because we know theres a chance that fetus is living, and we won't risk destroying something that may be living, and we above all, respect life.
And for the ending rebuttle of that argument, no child is asked to be born, and no child is planned either. You could have unprotected sex for a year, every month, and you won't know when you'll become pregnant. Just because you happen to want a child at the moment doesn't mean you'll become pregnant the next time you have sex, and just because you don't want a child doesn't mean you won't become pregnant.
I was never asked whether i wanted to be born, i never asked to be born, and my parents never planned i would be born at that particular time, but of course, when things go my way, or sometimes if they don't, i enjoy living. And i did have a lot of emotional probelms growing up. I did come from a "broken" household, but just because of that, i wouldn't want to have died.
I sincerely doubt that a child would rather die than endure a small amount of discomfort growing up for the first 1/6 of it's lifespan, and i spit in the face of anyone who thinks they are God and believe they can make the decision to take another life, or decide its fate, or even think they can speak for it when they say: "It would rather be aborted than be poor".
Because let me tell you, i go red with anger when people think they can tell me what i want to say, or think they can tell me how i feel.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 6:46 am
I agree with you that they feel they are doing what is right. I also agree that the argument of "it'll have a bad life" contradicts the term pro-choice. It's basically you deciding how someone else's life will be, when really, no one has any idea, unless you believe in God. In which case, He knows. That's not the point, when you decide that someone is better off dead, it is taking that person's choice away.
Of course I'm a tad biased. My friend was supposed to be aborted, her mom's doctors kept insisting on it and her mom said, "Hell no." She was taking a medication at the time, before she knew she was pregnant, that no baby had ever survived from when their moms had been taking it while pregnant. They said if she did survive, she'd be deformed, and that it'd be better for the child to be aborted so she wouldn't have to live with it.
Well. Needless to say, she's glad she's alive. She loves life. I"m glad she's alive, she's helped me oh I dunno how many times.
Every living person right now can choose to live or die. I can kill myself right now. I won't, but it's my choice. I could do it. If someone decided I'd be much happier if I didn't have to deal with living and killed me, I"d be kinda mad. That's taking my choice away. They have NO right to tell me how I feel or how my life will be. They don't know. Abortion for the sake of sparing the child pain is not prochoice. It is anti-choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 11:37 am
Even so, people with Birth defects can still become valued members of society.
I know a blind man named Arnesto whom I met recently, he taught me more about life and adaptation in one day of talking than I could learn in a lifetime. And that feeling that even with a handi-capp, people with the right parenting, regardless of where and how much money you have, can develop into becoming good people.
I feel that most who are pro-choice know they won't be good parents. And for that reason want to abort with the excuse of "I'm not ready..." if they aren't ready they shouldn't have sex, despite the idea that sex is not just for pro-creation. The fact is you don't initiate the beginning of something without thinking of it's potential and the movement of it.
Arnesto, this man who was born with the disease is Still against stem-cell research, saying he would rather not have someone die for his sight. The main problem is not that a woman should have a choice with her body, it's whether or not we can define the fetus as a human life or not. I feel that we can, and they feel they can't.
Though they continually state it should just be a woman's choice, you realize that they spend most of their time trying to justify an abortion by stating a fetus is a nonsetient life form?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 1:05 pm
My mom's in a wheelchair, and has been all my life. She supports stem cell research to end her paralysis. Just not fetal stem cell research. Besides the fact that it is unneccesary to use fetal stem cells and therefore is a pointless death, the body rejects fetal stem cells much more than it rejects stem cells taken from your own body. Yeah, you have stem cells, congratulations! Also, cancer is less likely to occur that way. I disagree with you. I think most pro-choicers think they'll be good parents. I think they are prochoice because they believe it is right and should be an option for women in trouble. They push for better adoption systems and sex ed courses, I think it's safe to say they aren't irresponsible people, nor are they idiots. I think they feel that abortion should be available to women in order to protect their bodies from exploitation, and while I don't agree that abortion is a responsible solution, they feel that it is in many cases. I happen to find that Government-Imposed Legal Abortion (I'm in the US, it was states rights before RvW, not illegal everywhere, only illegal in states that chose to keep it illegal) abortion is a detriment to women, but I'm sure most prochoicers can't understand that. In fact, I'm sure they can't understand it, because they've said that they don't. That's fine, I don't understand how they can feel abortion is a responsible option, but I do understand that they do. The core issue is when life begins, as you say, but I don't think most pro-choicers believe they'll be bad parents. Planned Parenthood gives these reasons, and they seem accurate. Quote: The most common reasons a woman chooses abortion are She is not ready to become a parent. She cannot afford a baby. She doesn't want to be a single parent. She doesn't want anyone to know she has had sex or is pregnant. She is too young or too immature to have a child. She has all the children she wants. Her husband, partner, or parent wants her to have an abortion. She or the fetus has a health problem. She was a survivor of rape or incest. Now...I have a major problem with a few of those and minor problems with the rest, but that's generally why women have abortions...not why they're prochoice, though. When life begins is a question indeed. My zoology book says it's at conception, which surprised me. It's definitely not written by Fundamentalist Christians before anyone asks, because the whole book is built on the basis that we assume evolution is a fact. It goes on to talk to describe reproductive behaviors in mammals. YOu've got your oviparous (monotremes) that lay eggs, and your viviparous (placentals and marsupials) which provide a bit more care. The difference between placentals and marsupials is that placentals spend more in gestation and marsupials do more in lactation. Marsupials are born embryos, both anatomically and physiologically. They stay in the mother's pouch where they feed until ready to survive outside of it. It's a LONG time compared to how long they were in the womb...an opossum usually spends 50-60 days feeding and only 12 days in the womb. That'd be like breast-feeding a human baby until about 3 years after it is born. Ratio-wise I mean, of gestation:feeding time. It's about 1:4.1 if you take 50 days. Why do they spend so much time feeding? It's born as an embryo. It needs the same thing a human embryo at that stage needs, but it's born. Placental mammals, however, remain in the womb during these same stages of developement. Gives our bellies something to moan about, but it saves our brests at least xd Gestation in placental mammals can also be prolonged by the delayed attachment of the blastocyst to the uterian wall. It is believed that some animals evolved like this in order for them to be born in times when they can handle the weather. THat's all paraphrased, mostly, I'm relying on my notes and worksheets right at the moment, but I can go back and look it up specifically if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 4:09 pm
Well, it's alright to disagree, we are pro-life for different reasons after all. However when we come to debate, we cannot accuse the other side of anything, so what I feel about them does not help nor hinder the debate, it is just a feeling.
Well, the only reason I am against stem-cell research is in the case of the destruction of embryo's.... if it's adult stem cells, I have no problem with it.
However, I would still like to point out that for some reason the idea of stemcell research centers largely upon the dead fetus or embryo and NOT the adult stem cells. What I find disturbing is that people in today's society are extremely selfish in their wish for a cure for themselves...
I mean, yes... I'm probably making myself look like a jerk, but even so... I wouldn't know how to put it later on... I just feel that no one should have to die for another to be cured. There are still many other ways to research a cure for a person that doesn't require stem cells. I feel like people are more for the individuals alive now who can praise them than for the silent ones... that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 5:12 pm
Mcphee Ok. After thinking about this, I'm responding. Very well, I shall read it... Mcphee I'm not claiming that it's -safer- to legalize abortion. I'm claiming that it's necessary so that we can make educated decisions based on what we want our own lives to be like. It's important to have an array of life choices to make, though some of them may involve death. But that's something you need to decide for yourself.
Having a child's a big thing, and you can't enter into it lightly. You have to consider all the possiblilities, and if this is what's best for you?
Legalize drunk driving, but the only purpose to drunk driving is to increase the chances that you'll kill someone, rather than resolving a situation, like abortion has the potential to. I agree that education helps us make the better choices in life, but I disagree with your justification on decisions that involve death. If you want to claim education should help us make these better decisions then I ask why education is now trying to teach students how to have safe sex and centering on it over the idea of abstinence until one is ready. Education could be the key if people thought the same way, but because many different organizations, districts, and educational institutions think differently, there is no way to determine who should teach what about ethics. Secondly, having a child is a big thing, but isn't sex also a big thing? Or do you believe that an existentialist environment would be the best for humanity? Where sex means nothing but an act. Now I know that there are people who do in fact feel differently about the subject, but the concept at hand is why should one person's life be a justification to end another's? What makes the person who has the fun in having sex more justified to live their life over the person who is trying to enter the world as a result of the action of the one having sex? Legalization of abortion anologizes to the legalization of Drunk Driving in that it leads to the death of random innocents. As it is a fact that not every child will be aborted before birth, however, the one thing that does not fit in the analogy is that a woman gets a gain, while in drunk driving no one gains anything, however, I still do not feel it justifies the death of another human. It puts more importance on one person over another and if all men are created equal, this idea states that 9 months of someone's life is not worth a whole life of a child. Mcphee You're right. Okay, so It's okay for abortion to be legal. Why?
For 1) It's a personal choice based on someone's morals, and someone's body.
2) Moral subjectivity shouldn't dictate the law. Making it illegal would be on the same vein for me as making gay marriage illegal, at least in terms of morality. Just because something is against your morals, doesn't make it okay to try and take away a life option others may decide to take. Okay here is the deal, if morality should not dictate the law, then perhaps there should be no laws. First, there are two types of morality of which I will make a distinction. There is social morality and then there is spiritual morality. Spiritual morality would be based of how man has his or her relationship with God. Social morality is based off how humans treat each other. Now if you want to state that morality should have no dictation in law, are you stating the spiritual or social? If it's spiritual morality, I can understand, however if it is social morality, you are also claiming it should be alright for man to kill other men if they should be displeased with each other. The concept of morality in itself is very complex in that social morality is based off the best way for man to treat each other. By supporting abortion in the idea that the baby is not a human life, and therefore not a person, you would therefore be correct in your social morality and wrong in spiritual morality. However... If you believe that the baby is an innocent life within the womb of the mother, and support abortion, you are also against the social morality of your own ethics because in effect it is stating that some humans are more equal than others. This proposes the idea that one life would in fact be more important than the other. Mcphee I admit my justification was a tad glib, and doesn't really make sense logically, but I meant to list other reasons.
The fetus is a life. But simply because it's another life, that should dictate the direction of the mother's life? No. People have to make choices in their lives that seem right to them at the time. And as long as Abortion is a legal choice to be made, I support it, if not lauding the procedure with affection.
But there I go mentioning legality again. I think you are confused as I am on your logic. If you support abortion as long as it is a legal choice, I ask why you are supporting Gay marriage in other states where it is not a legal choice? Mcphee It's not about "no matter who it hurts" it's about "What's best for me, and what I want from life right now."
And like I said above, Drunk driving causes problems, abortion has the potential to solve them.
When has drunk driving solved anything? Legalize it if you like, but that's the differentiation to me.
You seem to be focusing on the death part of it, and the choice part of it, and because of that you seem to think that drunk driving and abortion are relatable to one another in this way.
Well, I just don't see it like that. I agree with your take on the analogy between drunk driving and abortion, but I feel that no choice that takes a life should be justified unless it has the potential to kill off another life. Mcphee By the logic I'm detecting from all of this, I'm getting that you think abortion should be illegal for two reasons. Possibly more, but these are the two I'm pinpointing.
1) Abortion is ditching your responsibilities.
When you have sex, you aren't automatically making a checklist in your mind saying that if you get pregnant you'll have the child, or that you'll abort it. Life hits you in the a** sometimes, and we have to take it into our own hands. You have to make a decision when it comes to pregnancy, because with nine months of being pregnant comes physical difficulties, not to mention those that will call her a slut, if she's underage, or younger than society deems.
It just seem to me that abortion is useful is protecting yourself from a place in life that you don't want to end up. You just don't -want- to go there. And I think that's perfectly fine.
2) The fetus is a life, a person, and therefore, an Human being all its' own.
Like I said before, The fetus is a life. But simply because it's another life, that should dictate the direction of the mother's life? I don't think so. You can't take away another person's choices, and you can't condemn them, or their actions without being in their situation.
It's not fair, and it's not right. The fetus being another life is incosequential, because You have to protect your best interests, sometimes. And you have to be a little selfish. I'm willing to admit that abortion is selfish, but so are a lot of things in life. If you never think about yourself, and always about the other life, you won't be able to see things clearly. I think you are separating what we see as inseparable. The idea is the mother conceived the life of the fetus and therefore conjured the human life, which should therefore make her responsible for it. It's two parts to make a complete whole, you cannot argue against only one and not the other, or separate them. Sure abortion is definitely selfish, but it is also destroying a life at the cost of selfishness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:04 am
Mcphee I'm not claiming that it's -safer- to legalize abortion. I'm claiming that it's necessary so that we can make educated decisions based on what we want our own lives to be like. It's important to have an array of life choices to make, though some of them may involve death. But that's something you need to decide for yourself.
Having a child's a big thing, and you can't enter into it lightly. You have to consider all the possiblilities, and if this is what's best for you?
Legalize drunk driving, but the only purpose to drunk driving is to increase the chances that you'll kill someone, rather than resolving a situation, like abortion has the potential to. Quote: You're right. Okay, so It's okay for abortion to be legal. Why?
For 1) It's a personal choice based on someone's morals, and someone's body.
2) Moral subjectivity shouldn't dictate the law. Making it illegal would be on the same vein for me as making gay marriage illegal, at least in terms of morality. Just because something is against your morals, doesn't make it okay to try and take away a life option others may decide to take.
What you have to realize is that all laws are based on morals. What's wrong with stealing? A group of people say that it's wrong. What's wrong with rape? A group of people say that it's wrong. What's wrong with killing another person? A group of people say that it's wrong.
It's already been determined by law that killing another human is illegal. We are simply telling the law to hold up its end of the bargain and make it all humans, not simply the humans that it feels like have the right to live.
So yes, our morals dictate that it's wrong to kill another human, our morals dictate that it should not be legal to kill another human. Is that so wrong? As I've told you in school before, "If someone was arguing that killing a human shouldn't be illegal at all, that would be one thing. But otherwise they have no arguement."Quote: I admit my justification was a tad glib, and doesn't really make sense logically, but I meant to list other reasons.
The fetus is a life. But simply because it's another life, that should dictate the direction of the mother's life? No. People have to make choices in their lives that seem right to them at the time. And as long as Abortion is a legal choice to be made, I support it, if not lauding the procedure with affection.
But there I go mentioning legality again. Quote: It's not about "no matter who it hurts" it's about "What's best for me, and what I want from life right now."
And like I said above, Drunk driving causes problems, abortion has the potential to solve them.
When has drunk driving solved anything? Legalize it if you like, but that's the differentiation to me.
You seem to be focusing on the death part of it, and the choice part of it, and because of that you seem to think that drunk driving and abortion are relatable to one another in this way.
Well, I just don't see it like that.
Drunk driving does solve problems, which I've already stated above. However it's pretty inconsistant of you to state that. You can only have complete control of your body, no matter who it hurts, if it solves a problem? Or is it just the fact that you'd rather think of a fetus giving it's life for someone else's choice than a wanted son or daughter giving their life for someone else's choice.
Because in truth that's all this really comes down to. If you're wanted you can live, if you're not tough luck. Let's not think about the fact that you rely on your mother to live because of something she and a partner did. Let's not think about the fact you didn't 'invade' her body, she willingly made you; full aware of possible concequences. Let's not think about the fact you're alive now. Let's not think about the fact that your mother's life will continue simply in a different direction while yours won't go any direction at all. You'll be faceless, nameless and uncared for, forever. Because that's her "right".
I'm going to finish the other two in a moment. I just want to post this first since it's already pretty long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:25 am
McPhee By the logic I'm detecting from all of this, I'm getting that you think abortion should be illegal for two reasons. Possibly more, but these are the two I'm pinpointing.
1) Abortion is ditching your responsibilities.
When you have sex, you aren't automatically making a checklist in your mind saying that if you get pregnant you'll have the child, or that you'll abort it. Life hits you in the a** sometimes, and we have to take it into our own hands. You have to make a decision when it comes to pregnancy, because with nine months of being pregnant comes physical difficulties, not to mention those that will call her a slut, if she's underage, or younger than society deems.
It just seem to me that abortion is useful is protecting yourself from a place in life that you don't want to end up. You just don't -want- to go there. And I think that's perfectly fine.
If you're having sex you shouldn't go into it thinking; "well if something happens I always have a way out.". God knows I'm not ready to have a kid but that doesn't mean I'm not going to have sex. The difference is that I am willing to say "This kid is here because of something that I did." and not say "s**t. Well I mean, sex is natural so it's really not my fault that I'm pregnant. How do I get rid of this problem?"
If a woman's choice whether or not she has sex, however killing a resulting child should not be a choice she gets to make afterwards.Quote: 2) The fetus is a life, a person, and therefore, an Human being all its' own.
Like I said before, The fetus is a life. But simply because it's another life, that should dictate the direction of the mother's life? I don't think so. You can't take away another person's choices, and you can't condemn them, or their actions without being in their situation.
It's not fair, and it's not right. The fetus being another life is incosequential, because You have to protect your best interests, sometimes. And you have to be a little selfish. I'm willing to admit that abortion is selfish, but so are a lot of things in life. If you never think about yourself, and always about the other life, you won't be able to see things clearly. Quote: Sure abortion is definitely selfish, but it is also destroying a life at the cost of selfishness. Quote: It is a very....tantalizing argument morally. It is very easy to justify not caring for nameless, faceless humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:04 am
After unwillingly stepping in to read some of the abortion threads arguments I can more and more see why I really do not enjoy them very much.
Despite the fact they are ignorant, they are a network of errors that work together to cover up their mistakes, like some type of computer. But it's annoying.
Lymelady for instance goes in there, askes not to be insulted, but is told that insult flinging is only bad when you're trying to change someone's mind, and the person basically told her they can do whatever they want. Idiot.
I feel like making some Pro-choicer stereotype chart... must I stoop that low? Then again...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:11 am
Yes....some of my favorite arguments were:
No one is saying it isn't human, in response to my response to someone saying a fetus isn't human.
An orange is a vegetable.
It's alright for her to say that lifers don't use reason and only use religion because it's true. You can't say choicers are sluts though because it isn't true. (Gee, I was under the impression that NEITHER one was true...)
Well, technically it's correct, I guess.
Haha, you're repeating yourself! After the same question has been posed repeatedly by choicers.
It's no wonder I collapsed yesterday, the n00b vibes must have soaked into my brain or something xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:23 pm
It's all based on an undefined reality... everything...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:52 pm
I admit that I am quite biased when it comes to the topic of pro-life. I am completely against abortion. My brother and I are both adopted and that really adds to it. I am really glad that my mom gave me up rather than not letting me be born at all. It leaves many questions however at least I got the chance to live and make an impact. Its hard when most of my friends are for abortion. Sometimes I cant explain it I think it is just wrong to do that to a baby. I know it can be very hard for a young girl, or well, any girl, to have to go through a pregnancy knowing that she will give up her child. But I feel it would be the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:30 pm
[-Yamato-] They are biased based on the idea that what they believe is correct, i mean, for example: "Pro-Choice people aren't against making choices, whereas pro-life people are. Pro-Choice people are compassionate because we think about the mother and her situation. And do you really think the child would like to have been born into a family that wasn't ready for it?" Thats a f*cking weak argument. Excuse me, but "compassionate"? More like selfish. They care for one being but not the other? Because the other one isn't as developed, but still human? Because it looks a bit different? Thats prejudice. Thats ignorant. That whole belief is based on the idea that the baby isn't alive or is incapable of feeling pain. They only convince themselves of that because they'd rather silently kill someone else rather than burden themselves with another life to take care of. If people think like that, whats to keep us from just eutanizing our retired senior citizens? Not to mention, i think pro-lifers are exponently smarter. Think about it. They (Pro-choice people) base their decisions on a personal opinion, could be right, could be wrong. But we (Pro-life people) side on the side of life. Because we know theres a chance that fetus is living, and we won't risk destroying something that may be living, and we above all, respect life. And for the ending rebuttle of that argument, no child is asked to be born, and no child is planned either. You could have unprotected sex for a year, every month, and you won't know when you'll become pregnant. Just because you happen to want a child at the moment doesn't mean you'll become pregnant the next time you have sex, and just because you don't want a child doesn't mean you won't become pregnant. I was never asked whether i wanted to be born, i never asked to be born, and my parents never planned i would be born at that particular time, but of course, when things go my way, or sometimes if they don't, i enjoy living. And i did have a lot of emotional probelms growing up. I did come from a "broken" household, but just because of that, i wouldn't want to have died. I sincerely doubt that a child would rather die than endure a small amount of discomfort growing up for the first 1/6 of it's lifespan, and i spit in the face of anyone who thinks they are God and believe they can make the decision to take another life, or decide its fate, or even think they can speak for it when they say: "It would rather be aborted than be poor". Because let me tell you, i go red with anger when people think they can tell me what i want to say, or think they can tell me how i feel. Wow, you seem just a bit angry. I realize that most of the arguments you see are fallacious like the quote you gave. You must, however, understand that the entire debate is in the metaphysical world of morality. There isn't much empyrical evidence to give. So it is to be expected that most of the "arguments" on the forums are "arguments" in the sense of two people disagreeing on the most primal , childish level. Most will be simply people flaunting their egos because they don't know how elso to approch the topic. And unfortunately for us on the other end if most of the people share this ignorance they will side with them. You, on the other hand, must use logic. The upside is that any truly intellectual person will fully agree with your argument. As for the rest of them, you needen't worry about them because you see the fallacy of their argument wink Anyway another thing to be wary of is anger. The whole ideology of pro-life is based off of love. You must show love for them in the midst of their frustrating actions. "But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:55 am
Mcphee By the logic I'm detecting from all of this, I'm getting that you think abortion should be illegal for two reasons. Possibly more, but these are the two I'm pinpointing.
1) Abortion is ditching your responsibilities.
When you have sex, you aren't automatically making a checklist in your mind saying that if you get pregnant you'll have the child, or that you'll abort it. Life hits you in the a** sometimes, and we have to take it into our own hands. You have to make a decision when it comes to pregnancy, because with nine months of being pregnant comes physical difficulties, not to mention those that will call her a slut, if she's underage, or younger than society deems.
It just seem to me that abortion is useful is protecting yourself from a place in life that you don't want to end up. You just don't -want- to go there. And I think that's perfectly fine.
2) The fetus is a life, a person, and therefore, an Human being all its' own.
Like I said before, The fetus is a life. But simply because it's another life, that should dictate the direction of the mother's life? I don't think so. You can't take away another person's choices, and you can't condemn them, or their actions without being in their situation.
It's not fair, and it's not right. The fetus being another life is incosequential, because You have to protect your best interests, sometimes. And you have to be a little selfish. I'm willing to admit that abortion is selfish, but so are a lot of things in life. If you never think about yourself, and always about the other life, you won't be able to see things clearly. Much thanks to Mcphee for making a nice terse summary of the argument. An for providing reasonable competition I would consider the second point to be the most vital point in the entire abortion issue. Is the unborn fetus, embryo, blastocyst, etc. to be considered a person and why? Whell then what is it? I've seen many a post claiming that a human is only potential life and not actual life until it is born. Being of a scientific mind, I consider this to be preposterous. Let’s get some things clear. Gametes (eggs or sperm cells) are potential. As soon as the egg is fertilized, it contains its own unique DNA and its own identity. Conception is the starting point of life. The zygote is the first step in which the being has all the components to make a fully functioning person. It is therefore separate and unique from both parents and is its own entity. I cannot see any particular point in embryonic development where there is a clear distinction between “person” and “non-person.” In other words, the slow, gradual process of growth does not allow for any distinct intervals and is in fact divided up solely by time. I've also seen a very interesing rebuttal to this argument. caelarue Personhood is granted upon birth, along with all the rights that being a person is entitled to. Not beforehand. I find it especially ridiculous to say that there is a sudden transition from "this hunk of flesh" to "this person" from the mere act of coming out of a woman. I don't believe location has anything to do with who you are. And what "entitles" someone to personhood? Through this line of thought you could make a case that some people are not "entitled" to the status of personhood (slavery). Personhood is an inheirent trait not suddenly aquired as one passes through the birth canal. As for the first part of the argument, it is heavily dependent on the second. If the unborn child is considered to be an actual person rather than a souless, paracitic non-personal lump of flesh, then the whole argument becomes ridiculous. It holds choice above life. It gives individuals the right to kill people because they are simply inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:59 pm
Veled just banned me from the pro-choice guild. hmph!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
