Page 28 of 40 [ 589 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 40  Next

Kiki1256
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Age:18
Posts: 317
Location: The land of the free and the home of the brave! And also the abode of the lazy people!

22 Jul 2013, 5:20 pm

It depends. I think it's only okay if both of these statements are true.
1. It's an unplanned pregnancy and you absolutely can't care for children enough to have them lead good lives.
2. The baby is still an embryo, not a fetus--it is terrible to abort it once it actually looks like a baby.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age:30
Posts: 5,573

22 Jul 2013, 5:35 pm

Conservatives are the ones that want to promote the idea that children are parasites. Hence why they want to deny them free health and education.

I, in my case consider an unwanted fetus a parasitic entity, because it grabs nutrients from the host and the host does not want it.


Conservatives firmly believe that human rights begin at conception and ends at birth. I think different, I think they begin at birth and end at death.


_________________
.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age:20
Posts: 4,621
Location: Reading, England

22 Jul 2013, 6:07 pm

Kiki1256 wrote:
It depends. I think it's only okay if both of these statements are true.
1. It's an unplanned pregnancy and you absolutely can't care for children enough to have them lead good lives.
2. The baby is still an embryo, not a fetus--it is terrible to abort it once it actually looks like a baby.

On point 1), what if it is a planned pregnancy, but your circumstances change? For example, you lose to use of your legs, you lose your job and default on your mortgage, your partner dies, you have a nervous breakdown.

Is it terrible to destroy statues of babies?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age:23
Posts: 7,263
Location: Arizona

22 Jul 2013, 6:36 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Kiki1256 wrote:
It depends. I think it's only okay if both of these statements are true.
1. It's an unplanned pregnancy and you absolutely can't care for children enough to have them lead good lives.
2. The baby is still an embryo, not a fetus--it is terrible to abort it once it actually looks like a baby.

On point 1), what if it is a planned pregnancy, but your circumstances change? For example, you lose to use of your legs, you lose your job and default on your mortgage, your partner dies, you have a nervous breakdown.

Is it terrible to destroy statues of babies?


What if your mothers circumstances change after you're born? Is it okay to murder your child?

Convenience isn't an excuse for murder.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age:20
Posts: 4,621
Location: Reading, England

22 Jul 2013, 6:49 pm

I disagree with your premise that abortion is murder.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

22 Jul 2013, 7:11 pm

Jacoby wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't want to read thru 27 pages, has the Texas abortion law been discussed? If not, then maybe that could warrant its own thread since I think it is an interesting discussion.


It's much ado about nothing.

Other states have as strict, or stricter, laws on the books and you see nothing being done about that or those laws being decried as a horrible affront to women's rights.


It's pretty hilarious considering left wingers are essentially admitting regulation kills industry. The abortion industry is actually in desperate need of regulation in light of the fact that is more dangerous getting an abortion than giving birth and the disgusting Kermit Gosnell case. You have this idiots in Texas walking around with used tampons and jugs of piss to throw at people, they should look at themselves in the mirror sometimes and realize that they're own worst enemy. I can't help but laugh, the foaming at the mouth left made did the same thing in Wisconsin when it came to the new collective bargaining law. Democracy in action people.

Your data are not reflective of reality.
First, the 'regulations' you are descirbing are specifically designed to shut down abortion providers, not to make them safer; second, abortions are actually about ten times safer than giving birth. Third, Gosnell was the equivalent of a back-alley abortionist, taking women who could not afford to go through regular channels or who had been denied regular channels for one reason or another; if safe, legal abortion is restricted, you can expect to see more cases like him, not fewer.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age:47
Posts: 6,651

22 Jul 2013, 8:08 pm

LKL wrote:
First, the 'regulations' you are descirbing are specifically designed to shut down abortion providers, not to make them safer; second, abortions are actually about ten times safer than giving birth.


I'd like to see hard proof of that with documentation that shows you've factored in the considerable number of physical, psychological and emotional side effects of abortion that are frequently swept under the rug by pro-choice advocates.



Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age:22
Posts: 6,020
Location: South America

22 Jul 2013, 8:24 pm

^ that a woman would choose all those side-effects over a pregnancy is one of my stronger arguments for being pro-choice.


_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age:30
Posts: 5,573

22 Jul 2013, 9:23 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
LKL wrote:
First, the 'regulations' you are descirbing are specifically designed to shut down abortion providers, not to make them safer; second, abortions are actually about ten times safer than giving birth.


I'd like to see hard proof of that with documentation that shows you've factored in the considerable number of physical, psychological and emotional side effects of abortion that are frequently swept under the rug by pro-choice advocates.
If you don't like women having psychological side effects out of abortions, a good first step is to remove the stupid social stigma caused by so-called pro-life dogma.


_________________
.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

23 Jul 2013, 3:04 am

In terms of sheer numbers of deaths, abortion is ten times safer than giving birth. If you want to discuss psychological impacts, at least do me the favor of not discussing the impacts on women as if you are trying to save a child from having to grow up; women, by definition, are adults capable of making difficult decisions for themselves. If they sometimes make decisions that they later regret - and the anti-abortion crowd pretends that this happens far, far more often than it actually does - then it is their right as adult humans to make that choice and to deal with the consequences as adults.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/16/2/gpr160213.html



hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age:40
Posts: 4,407

23 Jul 2013, 3:27 am

Jacoby wrote:

What if your mothers circumstances change after you're born? Is it okay to murder your child?

Convenience isn't an excuse for murder.


Once it's born you can give it up for adoption. You can't give away an unborn fetus.



Giftorcurse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age:21
Posts: 2,897
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina

23 Jul 2013, 1:25 pm

hanyo wrote:
Jacoby wrote:

What if your mothers circumstances change after you're born? Is it okay to murder your child?

Convenience isn't an excuse for murder.


Once it's born you can give it up for adoption. You can't give away an unborn fetus.

Yeah, but who'll take the child in?


_________________
Yes, I'm still alive.


hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age:40
Posts: 4,407

23 Jul 2013, 1:33 pm

Giftorcurse wrote:
Yeah, but who'll take the child in?


With newborns, especially healthy ones, there is always someone out there that is infertile and would want it. That would be a problem with older kids though, especially ones with problems. They would probably end up in some kind of foster home.

That is all the more reason to get rid of it now while it's still a little blob of cells or a little baby that people can bond with and raise like it's their own.

There is a huge difference between killing someone that is already here and killing something that is still growing in the mother and unable to live outside her body.



Giftorcurse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age:21
Posts: 2,897
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina

23 Jul 2013, 2:12 pm

hanyo wrote:
Giftorcurse wrote:
Yeah, but who'll take the child in?


With newborns, especially healthy ones, there is always someone out there that is infertile and would want it.

What would that child have to provide for them? Think about it. Humans have wants and desires.


_________________
Yes, I'm still alive.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

23 Jul 2013, 4:02 pm

Giftorcurse wrote:
hanyo wrote:
Jacoby wrote:

What if your mothers circumstances change after you're born? Is it okay to murder your child?

Convenience isn't an excuse for murder.


Once it's born you can give it up for adoption. You can't give away an unborn fetus.

Yeah, but who'll take the child in?

the foster care system.