|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:34 pm
So, I'm debating in the abortion thread. High ratio of choicers, of course, but I managed to hold up my end gaining what I feel might be respect, if not for the pro-life side, at least for me.
Because my arguments are logical, Okay? I make them that way so that you can't say "Oh, where's the logic in that, you idiot?" I allow myself to put all of those pro-choice arguments into my filter, and let it flow through, thinking about the fact that it's three lives. Laws protecting and defending life apply in abortion, and it isn't something that is really noticed.
Self-defence laws, for one. Child custody laws, Necessary force laws, laws that help our side in saying that "I know this isn't consistent with the law, and I can show you!"
But I feel like my words are falling on deaf ears. I mean, Is it that hard to consider a fetus a person? Is it that hard to say "It gets equal protection."?
I don't think so. But I believe what I believe, and so do they. So it makes me feel like ranting, which this is trying not to be.
My point is, the only justification that I can figure out that makes any sense to me in their assertion that the fetus isn't a person is that because there is no single, universal, infallible, defintion to what makes a person (and we can only speculate), they decide that because of that lack of a distinction, they get to make the choice about whether they decide if it's a human being to them, or not, based on the choice they make regarding an abortion.
I see it differently. Because there is no particular distinction as to what really makes a person, I feel that it is irresponsible to treat human life as something that can be decided on, on the whim of someone else. And also, as something that makes human life into a choice of "Kill or not Kill", as opposed to a pregnancy being a happy occasion, you have to think (whether you want the pregnancy or not) about your choice regarding the child, because the choice EXISTS.
If the choice didn't exist, you wouldn't have to approach your pregnancy as "Should I abort or not?". Because I don't like that women have been forced, by society, to make that choice (the ones who don't need that option, I mean, are now made to see their child as a choice.).
Okay, anyone know what I mean? Understand? Any additions or comments?
Or assorted luffins. heart
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:14 am
I find that, historically, it never really works out well for the humans who are considered non-people. Let's take a brief list in order.
Christians. Muslims. Barbarians. Witches. Blacks. Jews, Christians and Blacks again. Women. Feti.
I'm pretty sure we remember the effects of the ones before fetus- Millions of people were singled out and slaughtered because of where they were placed by law at the time. At least feti don't follow this historic- Oh wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:10 am
See they either think that a unborn human is a person or they do not care if they are a person. How ever do not stop defending the unborn. Even if you do not convince the choicers you may convince a few fence sitters. Even if you do not remember there is still glory and standing and fighting for the truth even if you are metaphorically killed for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:19 pm
Oh, I wouldn't say I'm killed in that thread.
I'm a fighter. I've got arguments up the wazoo, and I even got a few of them to concede some points. heart
It's all about making people look at what it is they're defending. It's harder to justify abortion when you rationalize it enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:29 am
divineseraph I find that, historically, it never really works out well for the humans who are considered non-people. Let's take a brief list in order. Christians. Muslims. Barbarians. Witches. Blacks. Jews, Christians and Blacks again. Women. Feti. I'm pretty sure we remember the effects of the ones before fetus- Millions of people were singled out and slaughtered because of where they were placed by law at the time. At least feti don't follow this historic- Oh wait. Something interesting to note: Progress does not close doors behind itself. That is: rights movements can be undone, as I heard a speaker on racism (Tim Wise) talk about. So we may actually be able to repeat that cycle whenever someone superior feels like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:58 am
The argument I hate most is that the fetus is a parasite who is invading the woman's body. So many of them argue that having sex does not consent to the possibility of having a child. They seem to think they can have sex as often as they like without consequences. The fetus does not "invade" a woman's body; something has to be voluntarily done (except in the case of rape) to put a fetus in the body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:53 am
ivana331 The argument I hate most is that the fetus is a parasite who is invading the woman's body. So many of them argue that having sex does not consent to the possibility of having a child. They seem to think they can have sex as often as they like without consequences. The fetus does not "invade" a woman's body; something has to be voluntarily done (except in the case of rape) to put a fetus in the body.
Consent has to be constant in sex, in pregnancy, it isn't. Legally it is, sometimes, yeah ( because of abortion), but I don't think it works both ways in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:52 am
It's pure selfishness. That's just it. Abortion is all about convenience. "I don't want this baby." "This baby is ruining my life." "I'll get in trouble with my parents/boyfriend/spouse/etc. because of this baby." And as for the women who will face serious consequences because of a baby, well, they shouldn't be having sex, because they know that pregnancy is a distinct possibility. It's pure narcissism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
