|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:43 pm
Captain_Shinzo garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo I rather choose pro-choice considering I find it better if a child is born in a good life instead of some terrible and poor area.
...
I'm pro-choice because trying to decide someone else's choices when it's not even your decision is a silly idea. I see this argument a lot, but I don't really understand it. People say they're pro-choice because it's wrong to make other people's choices for them, but at the same time, you're making the choice for that unborn child. You're assuming that the child would rather never be born than live a hard life. Or rather, you're ignoring whatever that child might want under the assumption that you know what's good for it better than it or anyone else might. -snip- So you're not taking away someone's choice, but you are supporting someone else's right to take away someone's choice? It still doesn't make sense to me. My issue with your post was not that you're calling yourself pro-choice. My issue is that you claimed to be for abortions (or as I originally took it: for legalizing abortion) for two reasons: 1. It's better to never exist than to have a shitty life. 2. You shouldn't make other people's decisions for them. Well, number 1 violates number 2, so I can't understand how you could simultaneously claim both as reasons for abortion. If you're aborting a child because you think it's better to never exist than to have a shitty life, then you are making someone else's decision for them.
That doesn't phase me too much, though, considering the mother has more conscious then the fetus. Not to mention the reason also plays a part.
I would also like to mention number 2 does not effect number one.
I said PEOPLE, that there is a fetus and does not make a human until properly birthed.Ah, but that point is in hot contention right now, which may be why I'm having such a hard time reconciling those two reasons. wink And while the consciousness of the mother might play a part in the decision (I say might because that is also being debated in this thread right now), doesn't the fact that the fetus has more to lose also play a part in the decision? I mean, death vs. being uncomfortable for 9 moths. Which is the greater evil? edit: also, I really do have to get offline now, but it was nice debating with you guys.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:54 pm
garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo I rather choose pro-choice considering I find it better if a child is born in a good life instead of some terrible and poor area.
...
I'm pro-choice because trying to decide someone else's choices when it's not even your decision is a silly idea. I see this argument a lot, but I don't really understand it. People say they're pro-choice because it's wrong to make other people's choices for them, but at the same time, you're making the choice for that unborn child. You're assuming that the child would rather never be born than live a hard life. Or rather, you're ignoring whatever that child might want under the assumption that you know what's good for it better than it or anyone else might. -snip- So you're not taking away someone's choice, but you are supporting someone else's right to take away someone's choice? It still doesn't make sense to me. My issue with your post was not that you're calling yourself pro-choice. My issue is that you claimed to be for abortions (or as I originally took it: for legalizing abortion) for two reasons: 1. It's better to never exist than to have a shitty life. 2. You shouldn't make other people's decisions for them. Well, number 1 violates number 2, so I can't understand how you could simultaneously claim both as reasons for abortion. If you're aborting a child because you think it's better to never exist than to have a shitty life, then you are making someone else's decision for them.
That doesn't phase me too much, though, considering the mother has more conscious then the fetus. Not to mention the reason also plays a part.
I would also like to mention number 2 does not effect number one.
I said PEOPLE, that there is a fetus and does not make a human until properly birthed.Ah, but that point is in hot contention right now, which may be why I'm having such a hard time reconciling those two reasons. wink And while the consciousness of the mother might play a part in the decision (I say might because that is also being debated in this thread right now), doesn't the fact that the fetus has more to lose also play a part in the decision? I mean, death vs. being uncomfortable for 9 moths. Which is the greater evil? edit: also, I really do have to get offline now, but it was nice debating with you guys.
In all honesty if my girlfriend got pregnant and wanted an abortion, I would understand if it was because she was raped. If it was because we have the money but it would be too hard, I would find it selfish but would go along with it, it isn't my decision.
Death vs torture, eh?
It really depends, death gives the pleasures of not having to feel pain and, therefor, allowing a person to get away from feelings.
Torture is torture but doesn't end a will-be-to-end life.
Again, as always, it all depends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:28 am
divineseraph Tourniquet Static divineseraph Tourniquet Static divineseraph Tourniquet Static You're actually quite dumb aren't you? Looking at your argument with the other person before I, you seem to know anything about having a child. If you can't look after it, you can't look after it. How could a man understand? Seriously, you can never be pregnant, and even though male rape exsists, you would have emotional scars but you wouldn't have a psychical reminder of it! If you have been raped, you wouldn't want the thing inside you to exsist. Want to know something about sexual abuse? I couldn't leave the house for three months, terrified he would see me again, that I would have to see HIM again. What would that have been if that was a rape? If I had been impregnated? At THIRTEEN YEARS OLD? I was, and am, too young. The consequences of a child is crippling at that age. And as for your very weak argument on toddlers, of course they know who you are. A fetus is barely a human, it's not got any memory, or awareness yet. So therefore you're causing less pain than a life in adoption or a life of hatred and shortcomings from parents who didn't want you. I didn't mean I would enforce it, and I can see how I come across as meaning that down to poor wording, but I would be thorughly disgusted seeing someone way too young with a kid. It's a kid having a kid. Can you not see the problems there? Are you too blinded by your made-up authority to see that? Bottom line is, it's not your choice. Women can choose. So argue away, it's legal, honey. No, buy it seems you might be. That's not relevant in the least, for two reasons- Firstly, because it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Secondly, because I never argued from the point that anyone should be able to take care of a child. If a woman has a child and suddenly loses her job, should she kill the child since she can no longer care for it? I never argued against abortion in the case of rape. Strawman logical fallacy. You're looking dumber and dumber by the sentence. Do you remember being two? If you do, that's quite impressive. How about one? You didn't remember jack. So what's the difference, if consciousness is the key to when a person becomes a person? And can you really decide for someone else which life is worth living? Would you want someone to decide for you? It's a kid having a kid, or a kid killing a kid. Neither situation is desirable, but given the two, and knowing that adoption exists, I would say that the first is less evil. Bottom line, n*ggers are property. It's legal, argue away honey. (Argument made from the perspective of a slave owner. Refute it. Go ahead, try.) Yay, copying is the highest form of flattery. Call me dumb all you want, it's laughable. And way to ignore every point I made. rolleyes And needless racism? Wow. You're like, totally my idol. Of course I didn't remember anything when I was two. But the point is I was born. I was outside the womb. I had consciousness, just not a very good memory. I was actually a breathing, moving, occasionally talking member of society. An unwanted fetus still in the womb isn't yet. I respect that you believe in adoption but if you look at the age of children having their own, you would see girls at that age may be able to conceive but giving birth will have a whole load of problems. This is why I think it's a bad idea. I don't know if you're motivated by religion or by morals, but I'm not going to drop mine just because some stranger on a Gaia guild tells me I'm an idiot. I'm not telling you to change yours, and I'm sure as hell not changing mine. But I can see your point, and accept some people are just like that. Really? You're the one ignoring my points- Namely, your brutalization of basic logical process. The racism was sarcastic and ironic. Were slavery legal, as it was, your argument would work the exact same way for a racist slave owner. That was the point. "women are legally able to abort, so there." "Slave owners are legally able to own slaves, so there"- It's logically invalid. Try again. And the fetus was conceived. Birth is just a difference of location. A fetus inside the womb can move, and "speak", though being in amniotic fluid kind of hinders that. You were no different five minutes after you were removed from your mother than the five minutes before. If birth is really that magical, what do we consider birth? Complete removal? What if only the head of the fetus/child is inside the mother? A single toe? If the whole fetus is out, but still connected by the umbilical cord? Which specific point makes a FETUS into a CHILD, and what magical properties make it so? Again, there is a difference in cases of serious health risks. Learn something, seriously. I am calling you an idiot not because you hold a different opinion, but because your justification and logic behind your opinion is terribly designed. Were you pro-life because "God luvs teh babbehs n wimens need 2 lern to not be babbeh killaz", I'd call you an idiot, too. In the case of racism and slavery, I am perfectly entitled to hold a different view. They're two different laws, two different issues. So it's not me that's failing. lol We don't know where a fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a child. To do that we would need to be able to study them developing, to psychically see them in the womb at every moment, which we can't do. We have no clue where a fetus stops being developed and starts flourishing. There's too many conflicting opinions and there's too many different issues and definitions. And as for health risks, I don't mean ectopic pregnancy- which is fatal- I mean this, which is more common in young girls after giving birth.I really hate arguments, so please, take the hint you're really not changing my mind. I'm not encouraging abortion, but I believe in some cases it's the best thing to do. You may think I've no justification but the truth is this is a view my entire community holds, and perhaps that's just what I've been raised with, but I agree with it, and there are many learned men and women with these morals, not only I. Your point is valid, and as much as you might not like it, so is mine. People differ. I think that "God luvs teh babbehs n wimens need 2 lern to not be babbeh killaz" is the real threat to people here, as that sums up exactly my cousins, who know even less about the subject than you seem to think I do. Feel free to reply angrily again, but I'm offering a hand of peace here and a "Let's agree to disagree". Yes, it is you failing. Your logic failed. You can not say "It's legal, so it's right" because that's what slave owners did or could do, and they would be wrong- The reason is because the law is not objective or necessarily good. Frankly, it was a b***h move and I would like either an apology, a renouncement of the statement, or both. dude, that's too far now. the point where an offer to agree to disagree is made should be the end of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:33 am
Eltanin Sadachbia Yes there is a point where a fetus is just a clump of cells, and there is a point where a fetus takes on individuality. Just because that individual is dependent on the mother for life, does not make it less of an individual. A baby develops rapidly, and very soon in the womb are they able to respond to light, sound, and other sensations. Yeah, you'll argue that amoebas do too, but we are talking humanity here. I think that children are more precious than amoebas. Since we do not know the point in which a fetus becomes a vessel for a soul, I feel we should think of a fetus as a more sacred thing. I know that those of you for abortion will not be swayed by my arguments, and I am sorry for that. .... now, please don't take offense at this... but as i am a strict non-centralist, i found the logic behind that post to be completely disgusting. humanity is no better or worse, no less equal, than anything else. amoebas included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:55 am
Eltanin Sadachbia If a woman didn't want to be pregnant in the first place, she shouldn't have been doing things to get pregnant. If you have sex, you KNOW it's a possibility. I think it's time for people to be held accountable for their actions. It isn't impossible to refrain from sex. I know, because I did it. I waited until I knew I could handle having a kid. My first child was a result of BC failure, but he wasn't a mistake because I knew of the possibilities and consequences of my actions. If someone doesn't have the means to support a child, then keep your pants on. Society places too much emphasis on sexual gratification. You can tell me that sex is a natural thing, and I'll agree with you, but let me point out that pregnancy is natural, too. If you can't handle being pregnant, then you should rethink how important it is for you to have sex. A life is WAY more important than a roll in the hay. We can't argue that we don't know what the baby wants, because a baby doesn't know what they even want. There is no way for a baby to tell us. All they know is that they need something, and we have to use common sense to figure out what they need. Whether they are in the womb or not doesn't matter. They are already learning in the womb, that's a key issue right there. They continue to learn once they are born. You talk about preserving the liberty of a mother to choose whether to end a life that she allowed to be conceived (except in cases of rape and such), but what of the liberty of that life to continue once started. In most cases pregnancy doesn't result from rape, so our main issue here is those who have consensual sex and become pregnant for it. Sex shouldn't be taken as lightly as it is when the consequences are so grave. People talk about the trauma of carrying a pregnancy through, but the physical damage and scarring from force-ably removing a fetus from the uterine wall causes just as many problems. So this isn't a discussion about health in my opinion. I don't have citations at the ready to introduce, so I won't make this a huge point, but based upon what I do recall of research I've done into the rates of complication from abortion and those of pregnancy in general, I'm disinclined to agree with you that they are equally likely to cause problems. (Can cause as many, sure. There are a lot of possibilities that can go wrong with any procedure or failure to act.) But you're right, it isn't a discussion purely about health. It's a discussion about bodily integrity, personhood, and the balance between personal and public rules. I applaud you on your personal aesetic choice and am happy it worked out for you. I wish you would apply the same dedication to reading what I wrote and not rephrasing a contemplation on the nature of personhood as my ignoring the right of an extant life to continue to exist. smile It's not cut and dry, I think I've made that much clear- I'm sorry if I didn't- but I've tried my best to walk through where my stance is and why it's there for the sake of letting others understand. I certainly don't think that my opinion would convince you; it is, after all, fast and loose as far as this topic goes and covers only the coremost parts of my sentiments. However I hoped that it would offer a little insight into why I feel the way I do and am a little confused that what you got from it was that sex is natural and that some people have financial difficulties that make the cost of prenatal care prohibitive (both real issues, but not ones I mentioned here).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:16 am
Chieftain Twilight dude, that's too far now. the point where an offer to agree to disagree is made should be the end of it. I'm gonna have to disagree. wink Personally, I feel like the "let's agree to disagree" move should be used sparingly, otherwise it becomes abusive. When you argue and argue, and eventually reach the point where the only thing that keeps you from agreeing is a matter of opinion, that is the perfect time to pull out "let's agree to disagree," because the argument can clearly go no further. However, when someone questions the logic you're using, to respond with "let's agree to disagree" is kind of a complete and utter cop out. What you're really saying is, "I can't support my own beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway." This is, understandably, infuriating for some people. If you have valid reasons to disagree with me, awesome. You go right ahead and disagree. But if you don't have any valid reasons to disagree, and you continue to do so, it makes me feel like you don't care about anything I say. You don't value my opinion, and all the time we have spent discussing and debating was about as meaningful as debating with a brick wall. ("you" and "me" being general terms here, not specifically identifying ones, as neither of us were actually a part of the original conversation) I'm all for people backing off when the argument can no longer move forward, but not wanting to admit your own logical fallacies is not a valid reason to quit debating. It's just refusing to think about anything for the sake of being stubborn. It's ridiculous. I'm not even a part of their conversation, and I'm angered by her move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:46 am
brainnsoup garra_eyes brainnsoup It's not about whether or not I would know him, or even if his parents would know him, but if he would have existed. If she had terminated the pregnancy within a week after conception, I would say no. The potential for him to exist would have been there, but that isn't the same. I think you're kind of missing the point. Before the child is conceived, it has the potential to exist. After the child is conceived, it already exists. It has the potential to become a fully functioning human adult. So the two examples can't really be compared because they're discussing two very different types of potential. Lots of things have the potential to exist, but they won't unless we take some sort of positive action to ensure it happens. In the case of a fetus, it already exists, and it will exist as an adult unless there are complications. The two situations are very different.
Whatever it is that makes him him was not formed at conception.
Also, and this is a mistake that I just realized that I've been making since I started posting in this thread so I apologize, that was my bad. But isn't it not considered a fetus until a few months into the pregnancy?
If my momentary flashback to developmental psych is correct, I don't agree with aborting a fetus, except in certain cases.
But my opinion right now is that I don't see the problem with terminating a pregnancy soon after conception.I would. I understand that fetus is simply a stage of growth. Would you consider your friend to be a different person when he is 90, wrinkly and losing his memory? Hardly anyone would recognize him as the same thing. That, and what you are presenting is a logical fallacy of Appeal to the People. Replace it with the N word and see if it still stands. Needless to say, it doesn't. I don't care if society doesn't see a fetus as a human, that doesn't change the simple biological and scientific fact that it is. Terminating a pregnancy soon after conception is nearly impossible. However, this said, the life is already existent and already in motion. the process towards fetus is not a flash in a pan, it's slow and gradual. We would then need to define the moment of "fetushood", which is, again, difficult to impossible due the the gradual nature of biological growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:49 am
Captain_Shinzo It does but it's like it was losing nothing, really. It is, as a human is, an organism and will face death. If it hits death now, it will probably be for the best since it wouldn't have felt anything. So if you were to die tomorrow, you'd be cool with that? I mean, you are an organism, and you're going to die eventually. If you die now, it'll probably be for the best, since you won't have to feel any bad stuff in the future. This seems more like a "nuke the world!" type argument than a "legalize abortion" one . . . . But maybe that's just me. Captain_Shinzo
and yeah, maybe what the fetus loses plays a decision but that is not MY decision. I'm arguing for if abortion should be legal or not, not what the decision may cause.
But why is it not your decision? What takes this decision out of your hands? And why does whatever you responded to that last question with not take the decision out of the hands of the parents? (in most cases. I agree that there are some cases where abortion may be necessary to save the mother's life, which are another issue entirely) And what do mean by "what the decision might cause"? Are you referring to consequences? Because if you're not looking at those, there are probably going to be some problems down the road. We must always look at consequences when making decisions. Captain_Shinzo
Death vs torture, eh?
It really depends, death gives the pleasures of not having to feel pain and, therefor, allowing a person to get away from feelings.
Torture is torture but doesn't end a will-be-to-end life.
Well, I would hardly call pregnancy torture. Unpleasant, sometimes, but definitely not torture. The actual birthing? Well, ok, that might be a bit closer to torture. But honestly, and I know this is going to come out unbelievably harsh so stick with me, life's tough. Get a helmet. What I mean by that is simply that everything we do has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are less fun. If I eat 3 pies in one sitting, I'm going to be in pain. If I don't look both ways before crossing the street, I could be in a lot of pain very soon. Hell, if I'm minding my own business walking down the sidewalk and a car swerves up and hits me, I'm gonna be in a lot of pain. (That actually happened here a month ago) Life is full of pain, and we can't avoid it. Therefore, pain isn't exactly a persuasive argument for me when it comes to life or death situations. As for death giving pleasure . . . . no. It doesn't. Death takes away pain, sure, but it also takes away all of the good stuff. You know that saying, "It's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all." I mean, the argument is essentially that the embryo isn't being harmed by taking away it's life. It's a neutral position. If this was true, we would have to accept abortion as a valid option for people. However, the argument on our side is that it's not a neutral position. You are in fact taking something away from the embryo, something it is already in possession of that has the possibility of giving it wonderful things. It is an argument based on a possible future, but I think it's perfectly valid. Consider the following situation: Someone breaks into a man's bank account and removes 500 dollars? Is this a crime? Well, let's look at it from two points of view. 1. We are only taking something away from someone if it effects them directly in that moment. The money had no immediate value to the man. Its value is entirely dependent on what he might buy in the future. I mean, he might get hit by a bus 3 seconds later and never be able to use the money. Not having that 500 dollars is not directly affecting the man. Therefore, it's a neutral position he was put in, and it is not a crime. 2. We take into consideration future consequences. The money may not have changed anything in the man's immediate life, but it will affect his future. He still has plenty of money to pay all his bills, but now he won't be able to a boat, or a trip to Chicago, or a wealth of other things he may have purchased to improve his quality of life. He may not have any specific plans for that money, but the possibilities for how he could use it are still there. Therefore, it is a negative position he was put in, and it is in fact a crime. At this point, the biggest difference between the abortion and theft examples is the status of the embryo as a human being. The man in the theft example is clearly a human being with rights. The embryo or fetus, well, that's what we're debating in the other posts right now. It's up in the air. Clearly, there is some dispute. So, while we're busy arguing about this, what happens to the fetuses? Which side do we err on? Well no that is something that pretty much comes down to opinion . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:50 am
Captain_Shinzo garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo garra_eyes Captain_Shinzo I rather choose pro-choice considering I find it better if a child is born in a good life instead of some terrible and poor area.
...
I'm pro-choice because trying to decide someone else's choices when it's not even your decision is a silly idea. I see this argument a lot, but I don't really understand it. People say they're pro-choice because it's wrong to make other people's choices for them, but at the same time, you're making the choice for that unborn child. You're assuming that the child would rather never be born than live a hard life. Or rather, you're ignoring whatever that child might want under the assumption that you know what's good for it better than it or anyone else might. -snip- So you're not taking away someone's choice, but you are supporting someone else's right to take away someone's choice? It still doesn't make sense to me. My issue with your post was not that you're calling yourself pro-choice. My issue is that you claimed to be for abortions (or as I originally took it: for legalizing abortion) for two reasons: 1. It's better to never exist than to have a shitty life. 2. You shouldn't make other people's decisions for them. Well, number 1 violates number 2, so I can't understand how you could simultaneously claim both as reasons for abortion. If you're aborting a child because you think it's better to never exist than to have a shitty life, then you are making someone else's decision for them.
That doesn't phase me too much, though, considering the mother has more conscious then the fetus. Not to mention the reason also plays a part.
I would also like to mention number 2 does not effect number one.
I said PEOPLE, that there is a fetus and does not make a human until properly birthed.Properly birthed, you say? What about a viable fetus, where the only difference is location? What about a fetus halfway out, or one with the umbilical cord still connected? What magical process occurs during birth to define differently something that is physically and physiologically the same, with the only difference being location?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:55 am
garra_eyes Chieftain Twilight dude, that's too far now. the point where an offer to agree to disagree is made should be the end of it. I'm gonna have to disagree. wink Personally, I feel like the "let's agree to disagree" move should be used sparingly, otherwise it becomes abusive. When you argue and argue, and eventually reach the point where the only thing that keeps you from agreeing is a matter of opinion, that is the perfect time to pull out "let's agree to disagree," because the argument can clearly go no further. However, when someone questions the logic you're using, to respond with "let's agree to disagree" is kind of a complete and utter cop out. What you're really saying is, "I can't support my own beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway." This is, understandably, infuriating for some people. If you have valid reasons to disagree with me, awesome. You go right ahead and disagree. But if you don't have any valid reasons to disagree, and you continue to do so, it makes me feel like you don't care about anything I say. You don't value my opinion, and all the time we have spent discussing and debating was about as meaningful as debating with a brick wall. ("you" and "me" being general terms here, not specifically identifying ones, as neither of us were actually a part of the original conversation) I'm all for people backing off when the argument can no longer move forward, but not wanting to admit your own logical fallacies is not a valid reason to quit debating. It's just refusing to think about anything for the sake of being stubborn. It's ridiculous. I'm not even a part of their conversation, and I'm angered by her move. That, and the attitude was quite disrespectful. It wasn't so much "Let's admit that we both have valid points", it was "I win by technicality so suck it. Also, stop talking because I declare myself winner". To paraphrase Yahtzee, "As the man whose friend showed him his plans for a feces powered helicopter said, 'This s**t will not fly.'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:37 am
Catharia Aakosir Eltanin Sadachbia On a side note- I think that anyone who has abandoned a child; or is deadbeat to their child; gets pregnant just to turn around and have an abortion as a form of BC; or who lives on welfare; or has had repeat felony offenses, should have to have their reproductive functions halted, by vasectomy, or tubal. I know it's harsh, but it would considerable lessen the call for abortion. It would also lessen a large burden on outsiders. Especially now that abortion is going to be paid for by taxpayers in the new health care system. How would you decide who does and does not get sterilised then? Would it be just those babies sent out for adoption, or a random sample of the new-born population? Are you suggesting we start a raffle? The tickets drawn getting sterilised before they can comprehend the words they hear, let alone the biological choice that's been taken away from them. I'm sorry, but once we start sterilising children, we're tip-toeing towards eugenics, and a whole lot more besides. You're taking away the choice, and limiting the gene pool, which though it could use chlorine in places, is limited enough as it is. If you want a sterile kid, adopt one with a genetic condition that renders them such (trisonomies for example), don't sterilise them just because you can. As a friend of mine once said "I'm not adopting, because I don't want to raise someone elses mistake, I'd rather raise my own mistake, at least I'll know what's likely to go wrong with it." Compulsory open adoption is the biggest c**k-up my country (New Zealand) ever made. I'm sorry, but if I'm raising your child, it's now my child, and you can butt out until the kid wants to see you.
Not all of the children put up for adoption are mistakes or mentally/physically challeneged. And I understand the "I would rather raise my mistake, than someone else's" but not all of the children are mistakes. There are women who would love to keep their children, but do not have enough money, support, et cetera to keep them and live pleasantly. I am barely scrapping with my daughter and I refused to give her up. Adoption in the US is not much better. And it is expensive! I know a woman who adopted a child from Russia and it took atleast two years and was really expensive. I don't understand the reason behind the expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:50 am
divineseraph I don't care if society doesn't see a fetus as a human, that doesn't change the simple biological and scientific fact that it is. I'm not responding to your post, just this one sentence because I hear it a lot from those who are pro-choice. I'm addressing those who think that a human embryo/fetus isn't human. So to those whom this applies to, my questions are: Why don't you think it's human? What species do you think that it is? I find it difficult to believe that you would argue that biologically it is not human because that's ridiculous and I think everyone in this guild is smart enough to know better. When you say that it's not human do you mean it's not a person (which gets into philosophy) and therefore should not be granted personhood and should not get any rights or is it part of a person depending on it's stage of development? We could legally consider it to be 3/5 of a person or split it up somehow giving it some rights but not the same basic rights granted to you or I. I'm just a bit confused at what exactly is going through your heads on this one sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:50 pm
Semiremis divineseraph I don't care if society doesn't see a fetus as a human, that doesn't change the simple biological and scientific fact that it is. I'm not responding to your post, just this one sentence because I hear it a lot from those who are pro-choice. I'm addressing those who think that a human embryo/fetus isn't human. So to those whom this applies to, my questions are: Why don't you think it's human? What species do you think that it is? I find it difficult to believe that you would argue that biologically it is not human because that's ridiculous and I think everyone in this guild is smart enough to know better. When you say that it's not human do you mean it's not a person (which gets into philosophy) and therefore should not be granted personhood and should not get any rights or is it part of a person depending on it's stage of development? We could legally consider it to be 3/5 of a person or split it up somehow giving it some rights but not the same basic rights granted to you or I. I'm just a bit confused at what exactly is going through your heads on this one sweatdrop Ah, the old 3/5 rule. Actually, ironically, it does. If someone kills a fetus inside of a woman, such as in a fight or car crash, he can be charged for homicide. If an abortionist does it, it's freedom of choice. Depending on whether or not the woman wants the fetus, it can be a person under the law or a blob of flesh. the fetus hasn't changed, only someone else's perception. Edit- It seems you misread my post. I know that a fetus is a human. An I don't care how many people disagree- The knowledge or ignorance of others is irrelevant to objective truth. The objective, biological, scientific fact is that a fetus is a unique, distinct human.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:16 pm
Aakosir I know it's bad, but overpopulation is real and definitly becomming an issue. I've heard the overpopulation argument a few times here, and I've gotta say, I don't buy it. (not that overpopulation is real, but that we need abortion to deal with it) Look at the various countries that have enacted policies to try to cope with overpopulation. China, for example, limits the number of children each couple can have to 1. This policy should be causing the population in China to drop. Is it? No. It's still growing a lot. Look at other countries who simply try to control the number of humans being born, and you're going to find similar problems. However, if you look at countries that try to address the social issues behind overpopulation, then you actually do see a drop in the population. (source: an article called Population and Development by Asoka Bandarage) There are a lot of reasons for it, but basically, when you improve the welfare of everyone in a nation and have less drastic gaps between the different classes, birth rates lower. Abortion is not solving the problem of overpopulation. Instead, it's stealing focus away from where it needs to be by falsely claiming to be a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:40 pm
garra_eyes Aakosir I know it's bad, but overpopulation is real and definitly becomming an issue. I've heard the overpopulation argument a few times here, and I've gotta say, I don't buy it. (not that overpopulation is real, but that we need abortion to deal with it) Look at the various countries that have enacted policies to try to cope with overpopulation. China, for example, limits the number of children each couple can have to 1. This policy should be causing the population in China to drop. Is it? No. It's still growing a lot. Look at other countries who simply try to control the number of humans being born, and you're going to find similar problems. However, if you look at countries that try to address the social issues behind overpopulation, then you actually do see a drop in the population. (source: an article called Population and Development by Asoka Bandarage) There are a lot of reasons for it, but basically, when you improve the welfare of everyone in a nation and have less drastic gaps between the different classes, birth rates lower. Abortion is not solving the problem of overpopulation. Instead, it's stealing focus away from where it needs to be by falsely claiming to be a solution. That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
