This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Abortion Scenerio
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I don't get why people get so angry at
others
for having an abortion. It's their baby, their body and their life. It's a bit like if you were *!@#ed off at someone else for throwing away their sandwich instead of eating it like you.
religion is wierd
It makes me angry when people compare murdering children to throwing away a sandwich. Weird.
Edited to correct spelling.
Post by
Monday
I find it funny both of you spelled weird wrong. Weird...
And I agree with MyTie for once the post above.
Post by
TheMediator
Its ok to put down a dog, an actual living being who has experienced life, and compare that to throwing away a sandwich, but once you flush out a parasite that hasn't even experienced life, zomg, that's too far.
Post by
MyTie
Its ok to put down a dog, an actual living being who has experienced life, and compare that to throwing away a sandwich, but once you flush out a parasite that hasn't even experienced life, zomg, that's too far.
I don't think it's ok to compare a dog to a sandwich either. Also, fetuses 11 weeks old have been proven to have memories, and since a fetus can die, it is alive. So... fetuses have 'experienced life' as you put it.
Post by
MyTie
This view, is of course, that there is nothing wrong with abortion. As if it has the same moral equivilency as buying a pack of gum, or snapping your fingers.
Let's say that she already had the baby, and was going to kill the baby. For the baby's safety, the dad detained her until the police arrived. Exclude the legal implications of trying to kill a born baby and just look at the father's actions. Were his actions justified, in that he was protecting his offspring? If so, couldn't it be understandable that a dad would have interest in the life of an unborn baby, especially if he felt the unborn were his living offspring?
Try to empathize with all parties involved, instead of putting your blinders on and running with your own beliefs.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
If a woman wants to keep the child and the man truthfully wants to have an abortion, he should be devoid of all fatherhood responsibilities as long as the woman continues her pregnancy, rather than be forced to pay child support.
I disagree with this last part. It would effectively end the concept of child support, and make it much harder on children.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Simply put, I don't think abortion and gum buying are the same. I arrived at that conclusion because this comment seemed so flippant:
What was ethically right about her actions?Nothing really... I mean, for me it's all neutral. She wanted a child, then she didn't. At no point in your post is abortion ever questioned as unjustifiable. That seems a little narrow sighted to me.
My restructuring of the question asks you to interrperet the planned abortion as unjustifiable. It that is the case, then how does it change the father's justifications, if at all?
Post by
MyTie
Abortion is not murder. It's just like exterminating a fetus in the womb. No biggy.
Extermination indicates that there was something that died, something that was alive, and something that couldn't be construed as anything but human. What's the definition of murder?
Applying neutral terminology to a heinous act doesn't change the act to anything less than heinous.
Post by
MyTie
The reality is that I have never seen it as unjustifiable...so maybe reconsider this...
In fact I have no blinderPerhaps you could try to look at the scenerio from a pro life stance, and see if that changes anything for you.Then stop trying to win ground I don't hope to 'win' anything. This is just an open ended conversation. I have no wish to debate right now.
Post by
Deepthought
Extermination indicates that there was something that died, something that was alive, and something that couldn't be construed as anything but human. What's the definition of murder?
Condoms, the world's biggest evil?
Post by
MyTie
Extermination indicates that there was something that died, something that was alive, and something that couldn't be construed as anything but human. What's the definition of murder?
Condoms, the world's biggest evil?
Sperm cannot be classified as human, since it has no complete DNA
Post by
Deepthought
Sperm cannot be classified as human, since it has no complete DNA
But it's entire reason for existing is to form that DNA, each sperm cell is a possiblity of a set of DNA being completed. Just like each zygote has a chance of being born.
Can you tell me a reason apart from "completely arbitrary" that you have chosen to make this distinction? (re: DNA and human/non-human).
Post by
MyTie
For me, there is a clear distinction between fetus and human being. The same distinction made between seed and plant. If you don't agree that's fine.
It is common when humans try to justify abortion that they either rename the act, the participants, or compare it to something trivial. When taken at face value, abortion sounds horrificI won't continue... Because you haven't responded to anything...If I don't analyze and dispute every sentence of your post, then deal with it. I get this complaint a lot. I read all of your post, I just don't wanna take the time to break it all down, because, like I said, I don't really want to get into a big debate. If you don't want to continue in this discussion, fine, but don't give me credit for your exit.
Post by
MyTie
Sperm cannot be classified as human, since it has no complete DNA
But it's entire reason for existing is to form that DNA, each sperm cell is a possiblity of a set of DNA being completed. Just like each zygote has a chance of being born.
Can you tell me a reason apart from "completely arbitrary" that you have chosen to make this distinction? (re: DNA and human/non-human).
Hmmm... something that exists to facilite the start of life cannot therefore be classified as life. And to the last part: Because condoms kill sperm, or at least, prevent them from reaching their target.
Point: The removal of possibility of life is not the removal of life.
Post by
MyTie
Well do Babies and if they do, why are you fighting for their case so much?
This sentence has communication problems. That aside, I fight for babies because they can't put up a defense for themselves. If they could... I wonder what they would say... that would be interesting. I doubt it would be "Kill me please".
Post by
MyTie
Well do Babies and if they do, why are you fighting for their case so much?
This sentence has communication problems. That aside, I fight for babies because they can't put up a defense for themselves. If they could... I wonder what they would say... that would be interesting. I doubt it would be "Kill me please".
What if they were born with birth defects? I think that the answer would be "Kill me please"
I worked with adults who had debilitating birth defects and they enjoyed life indeed. I think we shouldn't be so quick to speak for those who cannot defend themselves.
Post by
Deepthought
Point: The removal of possibility of life is not the removal of life.
You have yet to tell me why formed DNA is anything but an arbitrary distinction as to what human life is.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.