|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:12 pm
Cyberpunk Hero ryokomayuka Is the unborn baby not a human? Did I ever say that? In fact, have I ever commented on the "humanity" of anything yet? ryokomayuka A far as the fly it has a right to live but not many people get up and arms when one is killed. Anything that is alive has the right to live. Wait. Flies are alive. According to you, they have the right to live. Does that mean you would support legislation making it illegal to kill flies? And what does "not many people get up [in] arms when one is killed" have to do with anything? ryokomayuka Edit: I have a question. Why are you debating me about my views? Because your views hurt people. That's a really good reason to debate someone's viewpoint. What are you trying to a gain by debating me. I am in no position to change the laws. I have a right to my opinion which I generally keep to myself. I don't debating in real life. My opinion don't hurt anyone. I keep them to myself. I'm not out there trying to make it illegal. I pray for it but that's all. The only legislation I would suppose is by making abortion more restrictive. Abortion hurts people before physical and mental and I don't like that. Abortion can leave physical and mental scares. I don't know you view. So I don't know what you have said about humanity. I don't really know anything about you.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:35 pm
ryokomayuka What are you trying to a gain by debating me. It doesn't matter what I gain. Your views are still incorrect and outright harmful to others. ryokomayuka I am in no position to change the laws. I have a right to my opinion which I generally keep to myself. I don't debating in real life. My opinion don't hurt anyone. I keep them to myself. I'm not out there trying to make it illegal. I pray for it but that's all. The silent assent of people like you is part of what gives pro-lifers the ability to threaten to change the law. That is reason enough. ryokomayuka The only legislation I would suppose is by making abortion more restrictive. Abortion hurts people before physical and mental and I don't like that. Abortion can leave physical and mental scares. But so does the alternative. In the end, shouldn't the choice be left up to the individual to do what's best for them? ryokomayuka I don't know you view. So I don't know what you have said about humanity. I don't really know anything about you. You don't need to know anything about me to recognize how faulty and dangerous your views are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:17 am
Cyberpunk Hero ryokomayuka What are you trying to a gain by debating me. It doesn't matter what I gain. Your views are still incorrect and outright harmful to others. ryokomayuka I am in no position to change the laws. I have a right to my opinion which I generally keep to myself. I don't debating in real life. My opinion don't hurt anyone. I keep them to myself. I'm not out there trying to make it illegal. I pray for it but that's all. The silent assent of people like you is part of what gives pro-lifers the ability to threaten to change the law. That is reason enough. ryokomayuka The only legislation I would suppose is by making abortion more restrictive. Abortion hurts people before physical and mental and I don't like that. Abortion can leave physical and mental scares. But so does the alternative. In the end, shouldn't the choice be left up to the individual to do what's best for them? ryokomayuka I don't know you view. So I don't know what you have said about humanity. I don't really know anything about you. You don't need to know anything about me to recognize how faulty and dangerous your views are. Who says that my vies are incorrect and harmless? What's wrong with valuing live? So you think the law can be changed? What would happen if it did? But there choice affects at three people. What about the father? This affects him should he get to decided what is best for him. If he is around and as long as he is not abusive should he not get a choice? What about the unborn baby? It affects them should they get to decide what is best for them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:57 am
ryokomayuka Who says that my vies are incorrect and harmless? That is exactly what I am attempting to prove to you right now. ryokomayuka What's wrong with valuing [life]? That there are lots of living things out there. Too many to value all of them. At some point, we need to draw a line and say, "It's okay to kill this but not that." Secondly, there is a difference between valuing life and making it illegal for someone else to end a life. ryokomayuka So you think the law can be changed? What would happen if it did? Of course it can be changed. Laws are changed all the time. And if it were changed, thousands of women who want abortions would either be unable to get them or would get them from dangerous back-alley procedures. ryokomayuka But there choice affects at three people. What about the father? This affects him should he get to decided what is best for him. If he is around and as long as he is not abusive should he not get a choice? WHAT choice? You want the choice to be taken away! If abortions are made illegal, nobody gets any choice. ryokomayuka What about the unborn baby? It affects them should they get to decide what is best for them? Ah, here's the crux of the problem. What rights does a fetus have? Frankly, I say none. It's better that a living, breathing person gets to decide what she does with her body than that a semi-independent lump of tissue gets to continue its existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:22 pm
Cyberpunk Hero ryokomayuka Who says that my vies are incorrect and harmless? That is exactly what I am attempting to prove to you right now. ryokomayuka What's wrong with valuing [life]? That there are lots of living things out there. Too many to value all of them. At some point, we need to draw a line and say, "It's okay to kill this but not that." Secondly, there is a difference between valuing life and making it illegal for someone else to end a life. ryokomayuka So you think the law can be changed? What would happen if it did? Of course it can be changed. Laws are changed all the time. And if it were changed, thousands of women who want abortions would either be unable to get them or would get them from dangerous back-alley procedures. ryokomayuka But there choice affects at three people. What about the father? This affects him should he get to decided what is best for him. If he is around and as long as he is not abusive should he not get a choice? WHAT choice? You want the choice to be taken away! If abortions are made illegal, nobody gets any choice. ryokomayuka What about the unborn baby? It affects them should they get to decide what is best for them? Ah, here's the crux of the problem. What rights does a fetus have? Frankly, I say none. It's better that a living, breathing person gets to decide what she does with her body than that a semi-independent lump of tissue gets to continue its existence. Before you spend anymore time debating me, I hope you do realize that you are not going to change my mind. I have always been prolife. It's my choice to be prolife just like it's your choice to be pro-choice (at least that's what I think you are). I'm not very good at debating and don't really like to debate. I don't really see the point. Before abortion was legal, thousands of women did not try to have an abortion. Although I know that some probably did have abortions and probably some died but it wasn't a rampant problem. Currently the father has no choices. If abortion is going to remain legal then I think that the father should have a choice. As long as they are not abusive and are around. An unborn baby is not a semi-independent lump of tissue. It is a humans being since is still forming and it's separate from the mother's body. After a short nine months it will be no longer be in side of it's mother. It has value because of what it will become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:54 am
Anyone mind telling what the difference is between the two?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:06 am
tep Anyone mind telling what the difference is between the two? Pro-choice people believe abortion should be legal, and up to the mother to choose to have or not have. They believe the rights of the mother take priority over the fetus. Pro-life people believe abortion should be illegal and punishable by law. They believe the rights of the fetus take priority over the mother. Pro-life people have only religious reasons to cite to support their position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:00 pm
Pro-choice thinks that the mother has a right to have to choice if they want an abortion or not.
Pro-life thinks that the mother should not have an abortion unless her life is in danger. Some also think that there should be a incest and rape exceptions.
The is an another group as well which is pro-abortion which thinks that all pregnancies should end in abortion. Pro-choice is the middle group between pro-life and pro-abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:11 pm
ryokomayuka The is an another group as well which is pro-abortion which thinks that all pregnancies should end in abortion. That's, uh, not true. Well, okay, there's probably somebody who thinks that. Somewhere. Quote: Before abortion was legal, thousands of women did not try to have an abortion. Source? Quote: Before abortion was legal, thousands of women did not try to have an abortion. Although I know that some probably did have abortions and probably some died but it wasn't a rampant problem. That, however, is irrelevant to my point. Quote: Currently the father has no choices. The father gets to provide input. If the mother doesn't listen, then... well, she probably wins. But if abortion was outlawed, the father would still have no choices. That's not any better. Quote: An unborn baby is not a semi-independent lump of tissue. What? Yes, it is. The question isn't what a fetus is, it's whether or not value should be placed on it. Quote: It is a humans being since is still forming and it's separate from the mother's body. It is not separate. It has its own genetic code, and gradually gains independence, but until it is born (or ready to be born) it is still dependent on a host. Quote: It has value because of what it will become. Now that's an interesting point. If things have value because of what they will become and not just what they are, then if someone steals an apple can we accuse them of chopping down an apple tree? And if it's going to be aborted, then it won't become a person. It no longer has any potential, and therefore no longer has any value. (I somewhat expect this one to go over your head, so don't worry about it if you don't get it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:41 pm
Cyberpunk Hero ryokomayuka The is an another group as well which is pro-abortion which thinks that all pregnancies should end in abortion. That's, uh, not true. Well, okay, there's probably somebody who thinks that. Somewhere. Quote: Before abortion was legal, thousands of women did not try to have an abortion. Source? Quote: Before abortion was legal, thousands of women did not try to have an abortion. Although I know that some probably did have abortions and probably some died but it wasn't a rampant problem. That, however, is irrelevant to my point. Quote: Currently the father has no choices. The father gets to provide input. If the mother doesn't listen, then... well, she probably wins. But if abortion was outlawed, the father would still have no choices. That's not any better. Quote: An unborn baby is not a semi-independent lump of tissue. What? Yes, it is. The question isn't what a fetus is, it's whether or not value should be placed on it. Quote: It is a humans being since is still forming and it's separate from the mother's body. It is not separate. It has its own genetic code, and gradually gains independence, but until it is born (or ready to be born) it is still dependent on a host. Quote: It has value because of what it will become. Now that's an interesting point. If things have value because of what they will become and not just what they are, then if someone steals an apple can we accuse them of chopping down an apple tree? And if it's going to be aborted, then it won't become a person. It no longer has any potential, and therefore no longer has any value. (I somewhat expect this one to go over your head, so don't worry about it if you don't get it.) I don't even know what your point is much less know what is irrelevant to it. How do you know what will go over my head? You don't know me nor what I know. Here the source here.I'm not talking about if abortion was outlawed. I'm talking about the way things are now. The father should have a choice. The unborn baby should have choice. An unborn baby has value as it is and because of what it will become. Potential does not detabe value. Just because something has value does not mean it has potential. Just because something has potential does not mean it has value. Edit: I'm done debating. You win. I'm not sure what you won but you win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:11 am
I'm pro-choice. But that siad, I don't think the privilege should be abused. It should only be used when it risks the health of the mother, the father was a rapist, (can you imagine the mental anguish of not only being raped, but then having to carry around his child for nine months?) something like that.
And lets not forget the fact, if you do get rid of abortion clinics, its not going to stop anything. People will still get them. The only thing that will change is that instead of a safe sterile hygeic building, its being done in a back alley with a hanger sugar coated with AIDS, syphilis, and the black plague.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:08 pm
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori I am pro-choice. 1. America is secular. This means that we cannot force people to follow our religion, and we must abide by the constitution. That Constitution states that everyone born or naturalized in the United States has the right not to be subjected to harm against their will. Any woman who does not wish to carry a child, yet is being forced to, is being violated. However; some will say that a fetus has the right not to be subjected to harm against its will. There are two things wrong with this: A fetus cannot state its will, the mother has to make decisions for it, and fetii have not been born into the United States and are therefore not protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester. This means that the only defense against abortion is that a fetus has a "soul" from conception. That defense is obviously religiously based. 2. The Bible does not say that a fetus has a soul from conception. In fact, the Old Testament treats fetii as mere property. Exodus 21:22-25 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Furthermore, in Genesis, man does not live until he takes his first breath: Genesis 2:7 7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Clearly, the Bible is not pro-life, and neither is the Constitution. "You have heard it said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say it is not so..." Just for the record, Jesus comes and disputes that and says to turn the other cheek, so...careful how you use that. Not to disagree, but to point something out to you. I am a man. I don't care what a woman does with her body. I would not sleep with a woman unless she was my wife. So, if I had a wife who got pregnant, and there was nothing wrong with the baby, or the pregnancy, and she aborted the child, I would be seriously upset. I can't imagine giving up your child. I do however understand that if your child is not something you can take care of at that time, or you have been raped (Although it is unlikely to get pregnant from that, the body has natural defences) or if there is some defect with the child that you cannot equip yourself to deal with. Say your child will be retarded, and while I believe they have as much a right to live as anyone, you might not be able to care for this child, and adoption is impossible just about. But, also, the black plague is no longer a problem, so please...don't even bring that up. That's just not even viable. But, I agree. Women will do anything, and so will men (to the women, as of I dont' think men get pregnant. razz ) so it's better to have the option available, but I wish it wasn't used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:44 pm
DeanWinchester Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori I am pro-choice. 1. America is secular. This means that we cannot force people to follow our religion, and we must abide by the constitution. That Constitution states that everyone born or naturalized in the United States has the right not to be subjected to harm against their will. Any woman who does not wish to carry a child, yet is being forced to, is being violated. However; some will say that a fetus has the right not to be subjected to harm against its will. There are two things wrong with this: A fetus cannot state its will, the mother has to make decisions for it, and fetii have not been born into the United States and are therefore not protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester. This means that the only defense against abortion is that a fetus has a "soul" from conception. That defense is obviously religiously based. 2. The Bible does not say that a fetus has a soul from conception. In fact, the Old Testament treats fetii as mere property. Exodus 21:22-25 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Furthermore, in Genesis, man does not live until he takes his first breath: Genesis 2:7 7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Clearly, the Bible is not pro-life, and neither is the Constitution. "You have heard it said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say it is not so..." Just for the record, Jesus comes and disputes that and says to turn the other cheek, so...careful how you use that. Not to disagree, but to point something out to you. Strawman. I am not using the verse to point out the punishment, I'm using it to point out the implications of the punishment; that fetuses were thought of as mere property. Quote: I am a man. I don't care what a woman does with her body. I would not sleep with a woman unless she was my wife. So, if I had a wife who got pregnant, and there was nothing wrong with the baby, or the pregnancy, and she aborted the child, I would be seriously upset. I can't imagine giving up your child. I take serious issue with people calling themselves pro-life, but then allowing abortion for rape babies. The only reason you could possibly come up with fro that train of logic is "it wasn't her fault". This makes you not pro-life, but anti-sex, as you're implying that pregnancy is the lawful punishment for sex, and therefore that children can be used as a punishment. A rape baby is not any less human that a baby from a one night stand, or a baby from a loving marriage. Quote: I do however understand that if your child is not something you can take care of at that time, or you have been raped (Although it is unlikely to get pregnant from that, the body has natural defences) See previous. Quote: or if there is some defect with the child that you cannot equip yourself to deal with. Say your child will be retarded, and while I believe they have as much a right to live as anyone, you might not be able to care for this child, and adoption is impossible just about. But, also, the black plague is no longer a problem, so please...don't even bring that up. That's just not even viable. I don't believe I did. Quote: But, I agree. Women will do anything, and so will men (to the women, as of I dont' think men get pregnant. razz ) so it's better to have the option available, but I wish it wasn't used. If you think the option should be available, you're pro-choice. ^-^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:40 am
ADirtyRottenPedophile Quote: or if there is some defect with the child that you cannot equip yourself to deal with. Say your child will be retarded, and while I believe they have as much a right to live as anyone, you might not be able to care for this child, and adoption is impossible just about. But, also, the black plague is no longer a problem, so please...don't even bring that up. That's just not even viable. I don't believe I did. I did . And the mere fact he didn't know I was using humor there kind of worries me. Sugar coated should of been an indicator itself, but then the black plague? Really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
