Thread Tools

Codette
The One and Only

Penpal
767.32
Codette is offline
 
#276
Old 07-22-2010, 07:32 PM

so what if I get pregnant should I just kill myself? Cause pain to all the people who love and cherish me? I know how tough life can be! Thats why I want to make things better for a kid thats already born and has been given nothing. The fetus doesn't even know it's a being yet. No heart, no brainwaves. It's growing due to sucking the life out of the mother, through what she injests. How can a fetus possibly have thought 'oh please don't kill me I might have a future!'
Well I have a future, I've been born, I couldv'e just as easily been not. But my parents made the choice to keep me. It's not like I'd have a grudge to hold if my mom aborted.

You know what, define a person. I want to know what your definition is. To me that fetus isn't a 'person' until it's about a month into term. Plenty of time to make a decision that will influence the rest of your life.

I'm done with you and your one-sided opinion. I can see when abortion is a bad angle, but apparently you fail to see when it's usefull. And even if people like you do make it illegal, there will always be abortions. Women in back alleys with coathangers, purposfully falling down stairs, punching the baby dead before it's born.

I believe in options, and choice, and freedom for those who have earned it. You give no choice. You take away freedom. And pro-lifers call us murderers, at least we don't force people to nearly kill themselves to keep their freedom.

Demon_of_the_Sand
⊙ω⊙
79.48
Demon_of_the_Sand is offline
 
#277
Old 07-22-2010, 07:34 PM

ok lets stop eating meat the animals can't defend them selves. its pro choice you have your choice and everybody else in this world has theres you rather doom one life to no education and living on the street then getting an education doing something with your life and having a child when you can actually support it. i would rather bring a child into this world with the hope of getting some where in life then bringing a child in while i can not support it. i'm 23 and i'm young enough to know theres still stuff i want to do but mature enough to know that i'm not in the situation to bring a life into this world. you can do what ever you want but me im not ready and i know it. why hinder my life and try and raise a child that i know i couldn't do?

vortic
336.00
Send a message via MSN to vortic
vortic is offline
 
#278
Old 07-22-2010, 07:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle View Post
so what if I get pregnant should I just kill myself? Cause pain to all the people who love and cherish me? I know how tough life can be! Thats why I want to make things better for a kid thats already born and has been given nothing. The fetus doesn't even know it's a being yet. No heart, no brainwaves. It's growing due to sucking the life out of the mother, through what she injests. How can a fetus possibly have thought 'oh please don't kill me I might have a future!'
Well I have a future, I've been born, I couldv'e just as easily been not. But my parents made the choice to keep me. It's not like I'd have a grudge to hold if my mom aborted.

You know what, define a person. I want to know what your definition is. To me that fetus isn't a 'person' until it's about a month into term. Plenty of time to make a decision that will influence the rest of your life.

I'm done with you and your one-sided opinion. I can see when abortion is a bad angle, but apparently you fail to see when it's usefull. And even if people like you do make it illegal, there will always be abortions. Women in back alleys with coathangers, purposfully falling down stairs, punching the baby dead before it's born.

I believe in options, and choice, and freedom for those who have earned it. You give no choice. You take away freedom. And pro-lifers call us murderers, at least we don't force people to nearly kill themselves to keep their freedom.

Now you're beginning to make sense. "Define a person," is an excellent challenge! Not really sure where you got the thing about killing yourself is good though.

And perhaps that is the root of the disagreement. While not particularly religious, I believe that the soul is present from the start, or almost. This makes it a person. Just because it can't think properly (brain damage could do the same) etc, means little.

As for your argument about taking rights away? Sorry, but that's what society is. We take away some rights and freedoms for safety, security, and general well-being. It also depends on me believing that you are not interfering with anyone else's rights by abortion, when I believe the opposite. You are removing the child's right to life, which is far more important than your right to, what, not be uncomfortable, sick, and in pain? (Again most likely, its due to your own mistake anyway.)
Once again, I would ask you to keep your arguments to whether or not the child is a person, or whether one person's right to life should outweigh another's discomfort. This is not because I'm close minded, but because any other argument is inherently irrelevant as long as the other two are accepted by me. It's like if you're trying to teach a person to drive. You don't start by telling them the directions from your house to theirs. That's irrelevant. You start by telling them how to turn on the car, safety concerns, etc. That's not being close-minded, its just being logical.

Demon_of_the_Sand
⊙ω⊙
79.48
Demon_of_the_Sand is offline
 
#279
Old 07-22-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:
As for your argument about taking rights away? Sorry, but that's what society is. We take away some rights and freedoms for safety, security, and general well-being.
the safety, security and general well being of the person who is carrying the child who can't support it is what? abort the child. a soul is not a person it does not breath eat nothing. with you saying a soul is human where is it located in the human body? what is a soul any ways? to me its what is my personality my taste in music but it does not make me live breath i have psychical organs that do that which a fetus does not have. if you know that you can not support a child isn't the logical thing to do is to abort it?

Codette
The One and Only

Penpal
767.32
Codette is offline
 
#280
Old 07-22-2010, 07:56 PM

I did define the person. *deep breath* And my religion, no one else could understand. To me there is no soul connected to your body. Your soul is in purgatory, living out your life as you live yours. Making the same choices you are. Souls are also reused and relived. If you don't have a physical body on Earth, then your soul relives it's previous life in purgatory.
I feel that my beliefs are right, so I will act on them. I dont care what you think about a baby or a fetus. To me, it's not alive during the time that I feel it is acceptable to abort. It's nothing but growing and mutating cells. It's mold essentially, to me. There is nothing being taken away, except for the one thing hindering the already person's life. After a month, to me it is a person. It is alive and then it is murder. Unless some health complication comes up, then I will still accept abortion.

My statement about suicide, was a option lots of women take, when abortion is not 'acceptable'. To me the loss one one life far outweights the loss of two. Especially one grown member of society.

vortic
336.00
Send a message via MSN to vortic
vortic is offline
 
#281
Old 07-22-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon_of_the_Sand View Post
the safety, security and general well being of the person who is carrying the child who can't support it is what? abort the child. a soul is not a person it does not breath eat nothing. with you saying a soul is human where is it located in the human body? what is a soul any ways? To me its what is my personality my taste in music but it does not make me live breath i have psychical organs that do that which a fetus does not have. if you know that you can not support a child isn't the logical thing to do is to abort it?
Again, you seem to be saying that any time a person's outlook for the future is bad, we should kill that person. I hope that is not what you believe, but it is NOT what I believe. And if you can't raise a child, give it to someone else to raise, don't kill it. That may or may not be the logical thing, but it certainly is the right thing.

You also imply that a human soul is something physical, when most who believe in the soul would tell you that it is not. To me, a soul is your true self, your being that lives on after you die. More than that I don't really know.

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#282
Old 07-22-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by vortic View Post
Oh, and just because something is illegal or legal doesn't make it right or wrong. Slavery for example.
Just as a side note, you didn't ask me to provide an example that it was "right." You asked me to show you that it was "fine," and under law, it is "fine" to have an abortion under different circumstances, and it is "not fine" to have one under others (namely, it is "not fine" to terminate a pregnancy at the point during which a fetus is viable, unless the mother's life is in danger, which I think is a perfectly reasonable restriction).

Furthermore, glossing over your other posts, you are viewing personhood as the point at which someone has a "spirit" or whatnot. Well, the First Amendment protects me from your views, so I will still be in favor of legislation with a scientific basis instead of a religious or spiritual one, and that, sir, is the freedom to make the choice, with my doctor, of whether or not to have an abortion, should I become pregnant.

To legislate based on your beliefs and faith is an insult to the American people; we may as well tell the Pope to be our President.

Last edited by Keyori; 07-22-2010 at 08:12 PM..

vortic
336.00
Send a message via MSN to vortic
vortic is offline
 
#283
Old 07-22-2010, 08:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syraannabelle View Post
I did define the person. *deep breath* And my religion, no one else could understand. To me there is no soul connected to your body. Your soul is in purgatory, living out your life as you live yours. Making the same choices you are. Souls are also reused and relived. If you don't have a physical body on Earth, then your soul relives it's previous life in purgatory.
I feel that my beliefs are right, so I will act on them. I dont care what you think about a baby or a fetus. To me, it's not alive during the time that I feel it is acceptable to abort. It's nothing but growing and mutating cells. It's mold essentially, to me. There is nothing being taken away, except for the one thing hindering the already person's life. After a month, to me it is a person. It is alive and then it is murder. Unless some health complication comes up, then I will still accept abortion.

My statement about suicide, was a option lots of women take, when abortion is not 'acceptable'. To me the loss one one life far outweights the loss of two. Especially one grown member of society.
Well, I agree that if a human at this stage is nothing more than mold, it would be fine to remove it. Obviously thats not what I believe though :) I don't think your argument on suicide works until the number of deaths including the unborn children by these suicides outweighs the number of them that would be prevented by abortion. Since someone contemplating suicide probably has more issues than just the pregnancy, this is a very difficult number to pin down, but I would guess currently its far less than the number of abortions performed.

I would ask however, if your view on the soul is correct, why is murder wrong?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keyori View Post
Just as a side note, you didn't ask me to provide an example that it was "right." You asked me to show you that it was "fine," and under law, it is "fine" to have an abortion under different circumstances, and it is "not fine" to have one under others (namely, it is "not fine" to terminate a pregnancy at the point during which a fetus is viable, unless the mother's life is in danger, which I think is a perfectly reasonable restriction).

Furthermore, glossing over your other posts, you are viewing personhood as the point at which someone has a "spirit" or whatnot. Well, the First Amendment protects me from your views, so I will still be in favor of legislation with a scientific basis instead of a religious or spiritual one, and that, sir, is the freedom to make the choice, with my doctor, of whether or not to have an abortion, should I become pregnant.

To legislate based on your beliefs and faith is an insult to the American people; we may as well tell the Pope to be our President.
You want a pedofile to be president? lol jk

Seriously though, to scientifically prove the existence of the soul is probably not possible. Scientifically, human beings who are not fully functional still have rights. One of them is the right to life. That's why suicide is not legal. That's why we do not execute the handicapped. My arguments are based the rights given in the Constitution. Therefore, while they may not have a scientific basis, they certainly have a valid basis; the Constitution. However, if I make some assumptions, I can guess that you would require scientific proof that the child is a person after conception, etc. While I cannot, I can ask you, logically, which is worse, the possibility (and I believe, probability) of killing millions of people totally innocent of all crimes without any chance to defend themselves, or the certain discomfort, sickness, and pain of millions of others who can defend themselves?
I further request you do not reject this question based on your assumption that these are not people. Put it another way. The Nazi's believed that Jews are not people. They believed that Jews made their lives miserable. Therefore, the Nazi's were totally justified in their attempted extermination, correct? I am not invoking this example for shock value or to compare anyone to a Nazi, but rather this is the only other example that I can readily give wherein one group was denied life based on another group's perceptions about them.

Last edited by vortic; 07-22-2010 at 08:38 PM..

Codette
The One and Only

Penpal
767.32
Codette is offline
 
#284
Old 07-22-2010, 08:41 PM

I did not say the soul was physical. My belief is that the soul is elemental on an entirely different plane of existence from our bodies. And that is religion. Religion in a scientific debate is meaningless. Your beliefs and my beliefs and Keyori's beliefs all obviously differ so who is right?

Honey, women have been forced to make the choice between their life and an unborn thing for centuries. Whether do to controlling lovers, religious views, or yes, personal issues.

Murder is wrong, because at that point, the person has influenced the world. A living baby smiling has influenced someone. The growing tummy of a pregnant woman influence. Thats why at that point I disagree with abortion. Murder is taking someone away from those that love them permanently. Murder is removing a life that has changed the paths of others. But this is NOT about my view on murder. This is about abortion which is before a baby is born. The question is at what point does it become someone.

This is a never ending debate until people can just say, "It's your body, your life, make your mistakes, learn from them!". If you make one little error (ie: condom broke) then have your abortion. You willingly go into an unprotected gangbang, face your consequences. I'll say yes, you say no, lets just do what we feel is right.

No one will ever tell me, that just because one tiny flaw happened that my life is now over, and another must happen. I will choose abortion, and theres nothing you can say thats going to change that.

It's not like I'm saying abortion is the be all to end all. No, it's not the solution to every problem. But it is a considerable factor.

I'm trying to be reasonable, but I just can't stand the fact that you want to tell me that this is wrong when I don't think it is. So lets just say CHOICE.



On your note to Keyori... Suicide is not illegal. What are you going to do arrest me for shooting myself in the head? Too late I'm dead. Shucks. Even if I don't die, I'm more likely to end up under careful watch at the crazy house. Assisted Suicide is illegal in most areas of the world, unless the one dieing expresses complete agreement to her/his death.

vortic
336.00
Send a message via MSN to vortic
vortic is offline
 
#285
Old 07-22-2010, 09:16 PM

Yep, agree to disagree, that's all we can do. Would be nice if you could freeze it like that for later use. Got me through the day anyway. Company took away youtube, netflix, and similar sites so we can't access them. Now I'm having to keep myself entertained. Oh the humanity! Anyway thanks for the discussion, time to go home.

BrokenEnglish
Your Resedent Ninja Turtle
226.90
BrokenEnglish is offline
 
#286
Old 07-23-2010, 09:04 AM

I can understand how people feel about this.
But people have their opinions an you can ridicule me all you want
it is my opinion

Last edited by BrokenEnglish; 07-23-2010 at 09:11 AM..

Keyori
Stalked by BellyButton
90.57
Keyori is offline
 
#287
Old 07-23-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by vortic View Post
You want a pedofile to be president? lol jk
Rofl, well he'd probably be better than Bush, but thankfully that problem has already been taken care of ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vortic View Post
That's why suicide is not legal.
Since obviously you cannot prosecute someone who is dead, I'd like for you to cite a case for which someone was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for attempted suicide, and name the laws under which said person was charged. I mean this in earnest--I've honestly never heard of any so-called suicide laws (with the exceptions of assisted suicide laws... which are usually charged against various doctors or someone who reneges on a 'suicide pact' of sorts, and again, not against the actual person who commits suicide; these laws are in place to prosecute people who prey on the weak in order to avoid "homicide" charges, not necessarily to prosecute the act of suicide itself).

Quote:
Originally Posted by vortic View Post
While I cannot, I can ask you, logically, which is worse, the possibility (and I believe, probability) of killing millions of people totally innocent of all crimes without any chance to defend themselves, or the certain discomfort, sickness, and pain of millions of others who can defend themselves?
I further request you do not reject this question based on your assumption that these are not people. Put it another way. The Nazi's believed that Jews are not people. They believed that Jews made their lives miserable. Therefore, the Nazi's were totally justified in their attempted extermination, correct?
The Nazi's also had zero scientific basis about which "personhood" was defined. Last I checked, there is nothing inherently biological about being Jewish.

The fact remains that, at various stages of development, that developing human inside of a woman is not necessarily yet a person. It does happen, but asking for an exact point is like asking at which point in a toaster that bread becomes, indeed, toast. We can't have a precise and exact definition, but we know that bread isn't toast and a zygote is not a person (arguably, neither is an embryo). If we define personhood as any cell or group of cells that could become a person, then we'd have to put most of the country into jail (that is, any woman who has menstruated, and any man that has masturbated). I don't think that any sensible person would stand at this extreme, and likewise would not think that a viable fetus should be subjected to an arbitrary abortion (such as a sex-selective abortion).

However, I do believe there's a point inbetween where a fetus gains "personhood," and I think that the point of viability is a sound middle-ground we can stand on while we wait for science to tell us otherwise (by becoming more specific and whatnot).


Additionally, another argument that I haven't seen brought up (either in this thread or the original) is selective reduction. This procedure is a form of abortion, usually recommended by doctors to women who are under fertility treatment and have several embryo that have "taken." (This fertility treatment is why we have Jon & Kate Plus 8 -- Kate's sextuplets are a result of this fertility treatment, and her decision to not reduce the number of embryo in her womb, which originally was 7; one child was stillborn).

I have Kate's condition (polycystic ovary syndrome if you'd like to look it up), and there's a good chance I might have to go through the very same fertility treatment. However, I have no desire to have six children; I only want one. Having sextuplets is no small feat, and carrying all six to term runs a high risk of premature birth (not to mention the number it will do to me). So, if I do wind up with six embryo that take, I'd like to have selective reduction as an option. I'm not going to have six children and give up five of them, especially not with the adoption and foster care system that exists right now.

How would it be fair to me, my children, and the father of my children, and our respective families, to be forced to have six children when I'm only trying to have one? We're not exactly made of money to provide for these children, and yet he'll make too much money by himself for us to qualify for any sort of government assistance (which, personally, I would rather not apply for; I'm not a fan of being a burden on the public), and neither of us are interested in having a sponsored television show to pay for our cost of living, assuming we'd even get an offer (plus I don't look good enough for showbiz anyway ;)).

Technically, selective reduction is a form of abortion. It does the same thing as an abortion, the difference being that the pregnancy is intended to continue, so it's not "considered" abortion (even though the procedure is exactly the same, and the outcome is almost exactly the same--potential humans are destroyed).

No one denies that the risk of pregnancy of multiples is extremely high, and increases with each embryo. The loss of all fetuses, and even the life of the mother, are very real risks. To deny this procedure to the 7.3 million women who seek fertility treatments (in the U.S. alone!) will result in an epidemic of Kate Gosselins and Octo-Moms (assuming that only the women who are at risk of losing their lives are allowed the procedure; otherwise we'd have a spike in the rate of deaths to new mothers). We certainly don't need the population explosion and the stress on social services (either through welfare, SCHIP, or foster care, etc.). However, to deny this exact same procedure to women who only have one child just because they're terminating one life (as opposed to several, in the case of selective reduction), is equally unfair, both to them, and their children (61% of women who have abortions already have at least one child).


Similarly, if you define "personhood" as at the embryonic stage, you'd have to send everyone who has ever worked at a fertility clinic to jail, as embryo that are not used up (typically because the woman has a successful pregnancy and does not desire more children) are routinely thrown away (especially since it's more unethical to use them for something constructive, like stem cell research :roll:).

So! TL;DR: In my opinion, sperm, eggs, and zygotes are not good stages to define personhood. I find that most people in the medical or scientific community will agree. Embryo are currently not considered "people" by current laws, as they are routinely thrown away with no consequences to fertility clinics. Additionally, women regularly abort during this stage in pregnancy currently. Fetuses are kindof considered people; you can get into some serious trouble for killing one by being violent towards a mother (i.e., be charged with fetal homicide). Also, only late-term abortions can terminate a fetus, which are not easy to get and usually are only granted when the mother's health is at risk or the fetus has been found to not be viable (i.e. will have serious life-complicating birth defects, such as missing organs). Not to mention that there are only 26 clinics in the continental U.S. (none in Hawaii or Alaska) that will even perform this procedure. I find that this is a good point to restrict access to abortion, as the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother to survive and, in essence, becomes its own being. Several countries (Canada, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia) do not consider an infant to have full "personhood" until age 2 (based on murder laws), and I personally think that this is a piss-poor point in life to set it. I disagree with them.

In essence, I can't answer your question without knowing or defining where "personhood" begins. Any response I give you would be a knee-jerk emotional reaction, and emotions are not evidence in debate.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartuc View Post
Notice: I. Am Not. A Whore.

Last edited by Keyori; 07-23-2010 at 11:05 PM..

Reptile
(-.-)zzZ
429.30
Reptile is offline
 
#288
Old 07-29-2010, 10:58 PM

I'm pro-choice. It's the woman's body. If she doesn't want the fetus, she can get rid of it.

Riley_Dragonseeker
Dutchess of Creepers
761.34
Send a message via MSN to Riley_Dragonseeker Send a message via Yahoo to Riley_Dragonseeker
Riley_Dragonseeker is offline
 
#289
Old 07-30-2010, 12:53 PM

I am Pro Choice- but I do not support abortion of any kind.

Incest- well if anyone actually sits there and has sex with a brother, sister, cousin, uncle and etc.... then they should actually take responsibility for the life they create.... but again they have the choice to abort the fetus

Rape victims- I beleive that they have every right to have an abortion do to the case that they didn't want to have sex in the first place.... but there are ways to prevent getting pregnant, like the morning after pill... but I do know that there is a possibility that it will not work...

Normal cases- again anyone has the right to abort.... but here is my opinion on this subject, if anyone is gonna sit there and have sex out right then they should take responsibility and carry full term and if they still don't want their baby when its born then they can put it up for adoption....

If an abortion is to be made in my opinion it should be made within the first 5 weeks of the pregnancy.. again I'm not saying that anyone can't have an abortion at any point in time...

Philomel
ʘ‿ʘ
3576.36
Philomel is offline
 
#290
Old 07-31-2010, 03:37 AM

How is that being responsible, though? How is putting a child through the adoption system a "responsible" choice? Honestly, I think it's the least responsible thing a pregnant woman could possibly do.

Riley_Dragonseeker
Dutchess of Creepers
761.34
Send a message via MSN to Riley_Dragonseeker Send a message via Yahoo to Riley_Dragonseeker
Riley_Dragonseeker is offline
 
#291
Old 07-31-2010, 10:55 PM

That may be true but it also may be a better possibility for the child in question... I know that it can go either bad or good for the child but thats something you can't

Elmira Swift
Curator of Alluvium

Penpal
2098.29
Elmira Swift is offline
 
#292
Old 08-01-2010, 03:58 AM

Since I had to wrestle with this topic almost 2 years ago, I figured I should voice my opinion. I am pro-life, but I do not apply that to myself. I don't believe that it's appropriate for me to push my opinions on other people.

A little more than 2 years ago, I found out that I was about 3-4 months pregnant. I had PCOS and had to use fertility treatments (clomid). Gave birth to a beautiful daughter (now 12). However, I was 43 at the time of the more recent pregnancy. Since I have a history of fertility issues, including miscarriages (plus my old man was told by 2 doctors that he couldn't father a child), I was pretty shocked. My family has a history of (autistic spectrum disorders) ASDs (genetic - my father, his sister, my daughter and I have varying degrees of Asperger's). I decided long ago that if I was able to carry through with a pregnancy, I would. Otto was born 5 weeks early, a little less than 2 years ago. In case he does have an ASD, and there are some indicators that he does, we know how to deal with it.

From my perspective, I have to live with the choices that I make - and help my friends and family deal with theirs. I find it objectionable to push my beliefs or experiences onto other people. It defies logic. Some people choose to terminate, others don't - I'm just glad that they all have a choice.

Philomel
ʘ‿ʘ
3576.36
Philomel is offline
 
#293
Old 08-01-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker View Post
That may be true but it also may be a better possibility for the child in question... I know that it can go either bad or good for the child but thats something you can't
So ending a life before it really starts, before the thing the life belongs to has a single thought or feeling and long before it realizes it's alive and gets a sense of identity is less responsible than essentially throwing it to the wolves and hoping for the best? You have some odd ideas of responsibility.

Riley_Dragonseeker
Dutchess of Creepers
761.34
Send a message via MSN to Riley_Dragonseeker Send a message via Yahoo to Riley_Dragonseeker
Riley_Dragonseeker is offline
 
#294
Old 08-01-2010, 03:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philomel View Post
So ending a life before it really starts, before the thing the life belongs to has a single thought or feeling and long before it realizes it's alive and gets a sense of identity is less responsible than essentially throwing it to the wolves and hoping for the best? You have some odd ideas of responsibility.

Then what is the birth mother in this case supposed to do... if she doesn't want to abort but doesn't want the child as well, the only option for her would be to essentially give her child up for adoption, especially if she wants the child to grow up healthy...

ZoeyBird
(-.-)zzZ
309.56
ZoeyBird is offline
 
#295
Old 08-01-2010, 06:16 PM

I'm Pro Life. Here are my reasons

Incest- The way I see it is that it was your fault. You knew what you were doing. Its not the child's fault. So why kill a child? I believe its wrong. The child doesn't know what happened.

Rape victims- It wasn't the mothers fault and nor was it the child's. It was an accident. I know its painful but you could always put it up for adoption. People are looking for a baby to adopt. There is like a 2 year waiting list for one currently.

Normal cases- People mainly teenagers have a habit of having sex and most of the time get Pregnate. I don't see why a stupid mistake like that should cause killing the child. Its a human and has a right to live just like everyone. Its not the child's fault you made a mistake. Birth Control, Condoms, orrrr (My favorite) KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED AND CLOTHES ON! XD

Life Threatening- If a mothers life is in danger I don't see why she would have to kill the child. If the mother has a child and no matter the age and that child is in danger, the mother would throw her own life away for the safety of that child. Soo how does this make it any different?

Riley_Dragonseeker
Dutchess of Creepers
761.34
Send a message via MSN to Riley_Dragonseeker Send a message via Yahoo to Riley_Dragonseeker
Riley_Dragonseeker is offline
 
#296
Old 08-01-2010, 06:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoeyBird View Post
I'm Pro Life. Here are my reasons

Incest- The way I see it is that it was your fault. You knew what you were doing. Its not the child's fault. So why kill a child? I believe its wrong. The child doesn't know what happened.

Rape victims- It wasn't the mothers fault and nor was it the child's. It was an accident. I know its painful but you could always put it up for adoption. People are looking for a baby to adopt. There is like a 2 year waiting list for one currently.

Normal cases- People mainly teenagers have a habit of having sex and most of the time get Pregnate. I don't see why a stupid mistake like that should cause killing the child. Its a human and has a right to live just like everyone. Its not the child's fault you made a mistake. Birth Control, Condoms, orrrr (My favorite) KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED AND CLOTHES ON! XD

Life Threatening- If a mothers life is in danger I don't see why she would have to kill the child. If the mother has a child and no matter the age and that child is in danger, the mother would throw her own life away for the safety of that child. Soo how does this make it any different?
Ok so you do make valid points but there still needs to be choices. Everyone wants the choice. Even though it might be wrong to kill an innocent child that has not even had the chance at life.. maybe you should think of it as 'god' thought that it wasn't time for the child to be born yet and had other plans for him or her...

ZoeyBird
(-.-)zzZ
309.56
ZoeyBird is offline
 
#297
Old 08-01-2010, 06:30 PM

If God wanted the child gone. Its called death hun. And if God wants it in Heaven with him he will claim its life. Not have it killed by humans.

Riley_Dragonseeker
Dutchess of Creepers
761.34
Send a message via MSN to Riley_Dragonseeker Send a message via Yahoo to Riley_Dragonseeker
Riley_Dragonseeker is offline
 
#298
Old 08-01-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoeyBird View Post
If God wanted the child gone. Its called death hun. And if God wants it in Heaven with him he will claim its life. Not have it killed by humans.
Well some deaths are caused by humans and 'god' takes them. No matter what there are things none of us can control in this world and the one thing no one can control the choices of any individul

ZoeyBird
(-.-)zzZ
309.56
ZoeyBird is offline
 
#299
Old 08-01-2010, 07:02 PM

Death is something that happens all the time. Now Killing a child. I don't see how that makes it right. If God wasn't ready, before she had the baby he would have taken it home. I would know. He took all 6 of my kids.

Elmira Swift
Curator of Alluvium

Penpal
2098.29
Elmira Swift is offline
 
#300
Old 08-01-2010, 11:33 PM

God (or whomever) being omniscient would probably know in advance if a pregnancy would be terminated - giving the parents a choice.

If my 12yo daughter was raped and became pregnant, would I want to put her through a pregnancy as a constant reminder of what happened?? Let me think about that... she's autistic. I think that if she opted to terminate it, I would support her. The psychological trauma from the rape itself would be difficult enough for her to handle, but a pregnancy? I think not.

Speaking as a victim of rape, I can assure you that having to live with that alone is bad enough.

Incest is not something that is always consensual. Why traumatize a child for something her brother/father/grandfather/uncle did?? What about genetic defects?

I'm sorry that your miscarriages have caused you such pain, I've been there. However, I will not dictate my principles at someone else's expense anymore than I would push my scientific or spiritual beliefs on them. We all travel our own road.

 



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

 
Forum Jump

no new posts