88 replies to this topic

[Golan]

AllStarZ, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:27, said:

Its cute you know? You're talking about pain to a child and to a human being, and potential. How many Iraqis has your mess killed? How many potential intellectuals have gotten killed? There are more of your ilk supporting more actions against countries like Iran, which would result in more bloodshed.

Just shut up. I´m german.

AllStarZ, on 26 Apr 2007, 21:27, said:

Furthermore, besides preceding the child, what other relation is there between a foetus or child? And it all depends on your definition of humanity, whether it is upon conception, upon sentience, upon birth. What makes a human a human? The ability to speak? The ability to make decisions? Its chromosomes?

A full set of human DNA. So in effect fertilisation.

The Outsider, on 27 Apr 2007, 00:47, said:

Just a couple of statements:
Fact: A cow in the slaughter house suffers much more pain than a baby does in any type of abortion in any situation.
If you don't think aborting in any situation is moral(with the notable exceptions of rape and emergancies), you should really give a damn when somebody swats a fly on the wall because
Fact: Flies have about 10X as many braincells as 30 day old fetuses.

Fact: Reading the arguments that were allready stated can be quite usefull...

The Outsider, on 27 Apr 2007, 00:47, said:

And a concluding statement:
Descions not to have an abortion gave us Joseph stalin, Adolf Hilter, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Himler, Nero...
That was my counter to the continually used "human potential argument".

Fact: If people are too dumb to shoot such bastards as soon as it gets obvious that they give a damn about their potential, then it´s the people´s fault.
Besides, AFAIK none of the mentioned was threatened by abortion...

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 12:02, said:

I'm pro-choice simply because as a male I have no say in the matter. It's not my unborn babies. If males start forcing their beliefs on females like this, then the reverse should also be true. People should mind their own business and stop interfering with things that aren't their concern.

It´s not like we´d be wandering around the world, burning down abortion clinics and such bullshit. Noone is forcing anything on someone here.

Blaat85, on 27 Apr 2007, 12:11, said:

Major Nuker, on 27 Apr 2007, 02:34, said:

You're alive because your parents didn't dare think of aborting you. Shame on you for being pro-choice.

I live because my parents planned to have a baby. I was wanted and planned at the right time in their life. Shame on you for telling women what they can and can't do with what is theirs and for forcing women to go through a lot (definately in rape cases), while your gender has the easy way.

So waht would have happened if your mother got pregnant two years earlier then planned?

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 12:17, said:

And if you say that the baby isn't yours, then why not? What makes a baby not yours but something like, say, germs or food, is? I apply a pretty simple rule here: if it's in my body, I own it and can do whatever I want with it. I can kill it, digest it, absorb it, reject it, whatever I like. It's mine. It doesn't have a life of its own until it's no longer in my body. The fact that its DNA is different from mine matters little. My food has different DNA from me too.

I´m also trying to assert my claims on people entering my front garden, but for some reason they never agree...

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 14:30, said:

I'd rather be aborted than cast away by my own mother.

Well atleast you´d have the choice to make up for that...

[Sgt. Rho]

DITO @Golan, Major nuker and everyone who is pro-life.

It is murder to abort a baby, simply because it is killing it. "Murder = Killing a human or any other life form. (exept 1-cellers)". In my opinion, abortion should be illegal...

[CodeCat]

Then you should be locked up for the thousands of small life forms you've killed. And I take it you live off the air, too?

[Athena]

LCPL Carrow, on 27 Apr 2007, 15:22, said:

@ Blaat: In the US, if you father a baby, you are responsible for the financial well-being of it and its mother, regardless of your marital status, and if you are older than 16 but the girl isn't, then you have to find a way to do that from inside jail, because that's where statutory rape will land you. Males don't have it easy, at least not in a non-socialist society.

Well then I think the US needs to get its law straight. Because it is not like that here. Here, people are more equal, as it should be. Also, how can you even compare money to pain? That's definately not the same..

LCPL Carrow, on 27 Apr 2007, 15:22, said:

@ food/fly on the wall argument: What, prithee, is that food or that fly on the wall ever going to amount to? What would it even have the potential to amount to? Your arguments are void because a fly is never going to accomplish any great achievement, nor is a cow, or a pig, or a chicken, or a corn plant, or a wheat plant, or a...you get the picture. It's not that human life is necessarily more important than other life, but human lives are the ones with the ability and the potential to affect the world. I'd just love to see a double whopper with cheese find a cure for cancer or aids.

Aids or cancer are things that affect human beings, not flies. You define achievement by your own standards, you have no idea what is important for a fly..

LCPL Carrow, on 27 Apr 2007, 15:22, said:

EDIT:
@ Blaat's newest post: As I was reading the topic, I decided that I was gonna say to "keep it in your pants," but Nuker beat me to it with a statement that says the same thing, just in reference to the opposite gender. By no means is it only the women that are to blame for anything related to this debate, but that is also why it shouldn't be only the woman's choice whether or not to abort a baby. It's the dad's kid, too. He DID have an equal part - "fault" I think you said - in creating it, did he not?

I never said it should be the woman's choice only. It should be the woman's choice only if she was raped. But if they both wanted it, then I think the man should be involved also. But he should not force her to have the child if she doesn't want that.

Edited by Blaat85, 27 April 2007 - 16:31.

[Sgt. Nuker]

This statement is void if you are in fact a human.

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 12:26, said:

Then you should be locked up for the thousands of small life forms you've killed. And I take it you live off the air, too?

Do you not breathe the same air, or have you found a way to sustain life by not breathing?

So let me get this straight:

Choice > Life

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this basically what Pro-Choice means?


Regards,

Nuker

[LCPL Carrow]

Blaat85, on 27 Apr 2007, 12:30, said:

Well then I think the US needs to get its law straight. Because it is not like that here. Here, people are more equal, as it should be. Also, how can you even compare money to pain? That's definately not the same..

Have you considered the stress and strain that financial obligations create? Have you thought about the actions that financial obligations might induce someone to do that might inflict pain? How 'bout emotional pain? A mother who murders her kid suffers from that for alot longer than nine months, and you don't think that it would bother - even hurt, in a sense - a guy who struggles to pay the bills, one of which is child support? Also, what is unequal about the US laws? If you father a baby, you share responsibility, do you not? What else are you gonna do, get a sex change so that you can deliver one too? The mother already has to deliver the baby, so the father has to pay for it. That's about as equal as it gets, and over here, the government doesn't assume responsibility for you and pay for everything.

Blaat said:

Aids or cancer are things that affect human beings, not flies. You define achievement by your own standards, you have no idea what is important for a fly..

Ok, so the flies have their own Fly Disease Research Institute and work together using the scientific process to eliminate fly diseases and increase their lifespans, since they are, in fact, such highly-developed creatures to entertain such complex actions.

Blaat said:

I never said it should be the woman's choice only. It should be the woman's choice only if she was raped. But if they both wanted it, then I think the man should be involved also. But he should not force her to have the child if she doesn't want that.

If I recall correctly, didn't I agree with you that the woman should have a choice under certain circumstances, one of which was rape? And didn't you jump on me for it? And I don't think that the man should force her to have the kid, I think her own conscience should.

@ CodeCat: Ok, stop breathing then, murderer. [/sarcasm] Like, that is seriously ridiculous. Honestly. To take concern for organisms so damn far that you can't progress, thrive, act, eat, or hell, even breathe because GOD FORBID you might kill something. A baby is a far fucking cry from an amoeba, for chrissakes. Killing a human being that might benefit our race or maybe the entire planet is something to cry over. Killing a fly or a bacteria that won't do jack shit for humans, flies, bacteria or the world is not. Like honestly, go live in a hole without food, water, or air, and maybe then you'll be happy because you won't be killing any poor, helpless microorganisms.

Oh, and BTW, most of the bacteria in the air don't die just because you inhaled them. They continue to live inside you. Ever wonder how you get sick?

[CodeCat]

I still don't understand how you people can live with yourselves. You kill and eat hundreds of animals over a lifetime to survive, yet one single human is too much simply for the fact that it's a human. I don't discriminate between species, one human is worth just as much to the world as one cow. The fact that you judge a cow's achievements in life based on human standards instantly voids the argument. How do you know what's important to a cow? Who are you to judge what is important to a cow?

I'd like to draw a parallel to the subversion of 'inferior' races during the colony age. The standards of their society seemed odd to the colonists, so they were labelled as inferior, which granted the colonists the moral right to do pretty much anything with them. I'd say pretty much the same applies to the values of any species, including the different human cultures. Just because they appear as odd to you doesn't mean you shouldn't respect their values for what they are to the people that uphold them. By that reasoning, if I was an alien and came to observe earth and saw what humans are doing to each other right now, I'd label humanity as savage and commence nuking the planet to oblivion.

Just because species aren't human doesn't make them or their interests, values or level of existance inferior to yours. A cow or pig has just as much a right to pursue its own interests in life, whatever they may be, as a human does. The fact that we kill them for food changes little of that, and I eat them with the full knowledge that it might not be exactly pleasant if it happened to me. But that's survival instinct. My food has the same basic instinct as a baby. My food has the same desire to live as a baby. Just because you judge their importance or existence as inferior to ours doesn't mean they're not still fellow creatures like ourselves. Creatures eat each other, it's a fact of life. Some species even eat the children of their own species if they get the chance. Some species eat their own mates. So if we can eat other creatures to benefit our own will to survive, then we can surely abort our children.

[Mathias]

How can it be such a desireable moral quality to prefer to arbitrarily choose what's best for other people because of the naive assumption that life, as a concept, is worth more than the life quality of several other human beings?

Free will is more important than your sense of righteousness and your big shush-hush finger. People will decide for themselves which loss is the least to endure, and act according to it. We will provide for them the tools to act it out with. The free will of the embryo does not factor into it, because it per definition does not have a free will. If it had a free will, it could not act it out. It could not decide what's best for it based on how its further life would develop.

You can't base arguments on theories about how certain humans might aspire to "do something great" for humanity. If you say so, then I'll say that it's a grave crime to swat a fly, because that fly might have been a magnificent shit-eater and would have fathered a thousand more little maggots than the other flies in town, an accomplishment far greater in scope - relatively - than poor little adopted Pedro's epic undertakings as a street sweeper in some suburb across the pond. Murder is murder. Whether or not you want to be bothered by it is the only thing you can decide.

The parents will decide what is best for them - to raise a baby and not suffer the feeling of guilt over having ruined a potential human life, or have an abortion and live on. Not me. Or you.

Edited by Mathias, 27 April 2007 - 18:42.

[Golan]

Come on, stop that "it´s not your choice, it´s theirs! Shut up." babbling. We aren´t keeping anyone from taking a decission, we´re voicing our oppinion, not forcing it on somebody else.

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

I still don't understand how you people can live with yourselves. You kill and eat hundreds of animals over a lifetime to survive, yet one single human is too much simply for the fact that it's a human. I don't discriminate between species, one human is worth just as much to the world as one cow. The fact that you judge a cow's achievements in life based on human standards instantly voids the argument. How do you know what's important to a cow? Who are you to judge what is important to a cow?

Have you ever eaten an animal foetus on purpose? I don´t and am quite shure I won´t. There is a difference in denying a potential (independent) life and ending an existing one.
How can you say that an individual cow equals an individual human? I don´t judge a cow´s life on a general "human standards", I judge it on mine so do you and so does everyone else. A cow can never achieve the potential of changin the world as a human, that´s a fact.

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

I'd like to draw a parallel to the subversion of 'inferior' races during the colony age. The standards of their society seemed odd to the colonists, so they were labelled as inferior, which granted the colonists the moral right to do pretty much anything with them. I'd say pretty much the same applies to the values of any species, including the different human cultures. Just because they appear as odd to you doesn't mean you shouldn't respect their values for what they are to the people that uphold them. By that reasoning, if I was an alien and came to observe earth and saw what humans are doing to each other right now, I'd label humanity as savage and commence nuking the planet to oblivion.

Whoa, that last sentence doesn´t make any sense...
Colony age discrimination was mindless slaughtering, enslaving (you know, deciding about other human´s lifes) and whatnot. I´m not running around slaughering every cow or fly thinking i´d have the right to do so ´cause of some kind of supremacy...

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

How can it be such a desireable moral quality to prefer to arbitrarily choose what's best for other people because of the naive assumption that life, as a concept, is worth more than the life quality of several other human beings?

The opposing opinion is based on the naive assumption that that life quality for two others is worth more than life of one aswell. From this point, both stances are arbitrary.

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

Free will is more important than your sense of righteousness and your big shush-hush finger.

Free will is much more important than your sense of righteousness and domineering those that can´t speak for themselfs.

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

People will decide for themselves which loss is the least to endure, and act according to it. We will provide for them the tools to act it out with. The free will of the embryo does not factor into it, because it per definition does not have a free will. If it had a free will, it could not act it out. It could not decide what's best for it based on how its further life would develop.

People can´t decide which is the least loss. How could they? How should they know? "Hey, are you gonna abort? - No, I made bad experiences the last 27 times, I guess I can say it´s not a good idea."
Yes, it doesn´t have a free will or at least can´t act it out. But it will have one. Disregarding this is like going trough a hospital and switching off the life-support machines of comatous patients...

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

You can't base arguments on theories about how certain humans might aspire to "do something great" for humanity. If you say so, then I'll say that it's a grave crime to swat a fly, because that fly might have been a magnificent shit-eater and would have fathered a thousand more little maggots than the other flies in town, an accomplishment far greater in scope - relatively - than poor little adopted Pedro's epic undertakings as a street sweeper in some suburb across the pond.

This has nothing to do with the chance of or success in "doing something great". It´s just about the optimum that might perhaps somehow be achieved. For a human individual, this is by far higher then with any other animal.

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 18:38, said:

Murder is murder. Whether or not you want to be bothered by it is the only thing you can decide.

And murder is defined as the planned killing of another person.

Edited by Golan, 27 April 2007 - 21:08.

[Sgt. Nuker]

CodeCat, on 27 Apr 2007, 14:38, said:

I still don't understand how you people can live with yourselves. You kill and eat hundreds of animals over a lifetime to survive, yet one single human is too much simply for the fact that it's a human.

You know, I've wondered the same thing about "you people" as well. How can you sleep at night knowing that you support the killing of innocent babies, who's only "wrong doing" was being conceived (which is hardly a crime fit for execution).

And about bringing animals into this argument, just stop. Seriously, comparing humans to animals is like comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't work. The stab taken at us Pro-lifers at how "we" kill hundreds of animals a year to stay alive, I personally, and quite a few others don't hunt, nor do we kill animals for out food. Sure, we buy hamburger and veal and other meat from animals that were raised to be slaughtered, but "we" don't kill them just to kill them. It's not just those who are pro-life killing animals, it's the people on the other side of the argument doing it as well.

That load of horse manure you shoveled into this argument about your food having the same basic instinct and desire to live as a baby is just that, manure. Can your food grow up to be a scientist that finds the cure for some disease? Can your food jump off the plate and fly space missions? The beauty of a baby is that if they're nutured and cared for, they can grow up to be like you and me. All plants can do is simply grow, clean the air, provide food for us, look beautiful, or in some cases, become a nuisance. So stop comparing babies, which have a brain and all of the trappings that make them complex human beings to starch and chlorophile packed food stuffs.


Regards,

Nuker

[Whitey]

Precisely what nuker said. I am a humanist. Not a racist, but I believe my species is superior. In fact, I am against all non-humans (and humans) trying to harm me in any way.

I hesitated to kill a fireant the other day. It then bit someone and I smashed it under my foot. Is it wrong to smash it? Hell no, the thing tried to kill some girl in my class. Sure it didn't succeed, but do you honestly think it gives two shits about us?

Plus, that fireant wouldn't grow up and live and have a nurturing mother. First off, it was already grown the size of my damn finger, and secondly, survival of the fittest. By ending its life, I rid the world of an idiot, in this case, a spider. Maybe its pals will learn from its death and go elsewhere? Isn't this the famed "Natural Selection" theory that you support, Codecat?

Now that insects and ants are out of the way, lets move onto livestock.

What do we do with meat? We eat it. What do we do with a dead baby? We don't put it to much use now do we? I support the murder of food sources because I need it to survive and get protein and whatnot. But yo usupport the killing of a HUMAN just to save the (albeit careless) mother a day of pain.

Same thing with hunters. They don't kill just to kill for the most part. They kill and actually put the carcass to use. But not baby-killers. Hell no. Those baby's lives go to waste. Like nuker said, Apples to Oranges.

And again, don't even dare bring war into this. That's like apples to celery...

[Mathias]

So much for the Philosopher's Corner being flame-free due to no political topics being discussed.

Quote

Come on, stop that "it´s not your choice, it´s theirs! Shut up." babbling. We aren´t keeping anyone from taking a decission, we´re voicing our oppinion, not forcing it on somebody else.

You guys are making pro-choice sound like pro-death, while it is, quite simply, pro-CHOICE.

Quote

There is a difference in denying a potential (independent) life and ending an existing one.

Yep. It's more severe to end an existing one, because "what if" is just a vessel for thought and the basis of countless shitty arguments.

Quote

The opposing opinion is based on the naive assumption that that life quality for two others is worth more than life of one aswell. From this point, both stances are arbitrary.

A valid point.

Quote

Free will is much more important than your sense of righteousness and domineering those that can´t speak for themselfs.

Let's start asking the embryos whether they want to live or not, then. Or were you just getting at my face?

Quote

People can´t decide which is the least loss. How could they? How should they know? "Hey, are you gonna abort? - No, I made bad experiences the last 27 times, I guess I can say it´s not a good idea."
Yes, it doesn´t have a free will or at least can´t act it out. But it will have one. Disregarding this is like going trough a hospital and switching off the life-support machines of comatous patients...

From their life situation, I think it'll be possible to make a sound decision for many. Atleast it will be better than if you or I would make it for them.

Quote

This has nothing to do with the chance of or success in "doing something great". It´s just about the optimum that might perhaps somehow be achieved. For a human individual, this is by far higher then with any other animal.

It's still such a minuscule "chance" that it's worthless as a base of any argument. Heck, this entire argument is retarded.

Quote

But yo usupport the killing of a HUMAN just to save the (albeit careless) mother a day of pain.

Far more than a day of pain, I can assure you.
(P.S. I see abortion as a last resort, not as the best way out.)

Quote

And murder is defined as the planned killing of another person.

Bravo!

Edited by Mathias, 27 April 2007 - 23:39.

[Whitey]

@ The idea of the chance of success being miniscule: You ahve to be kidding me, right? Let's exaggerate: All mothers abort their child. Where's the workforce of that generation? The researchers? The Real Estate agents? The peacekeepers? Everybody has a role in society and the vast majority are beneficial to all of us.

@ A day of pain: Fine, maybe a month? A year at best? 1/80 of a lifetime for the mother, 1/1 of a lifetime for the child.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Ok, I'll admit that what I have said may have contributed to heightened feelings and it is understandable seeing that this particular subject is deeply contested and controversial. Each person (including myself) has stated their point of view, and has reiterated at least once their views on the matter. Going off what Mathias said, I too am beginning to smell smoldering kindling. In saying this, I am going to step back to a status of monitor, rather than be a contributor to a potential flame session. This does not mean I am giving up my beliefs, but it does mean that I will not participate in this debate. I am doing this of my own free will and, in my eyes, as a precautionary measure. The Deep End was closed because of flame wars resulting in two sides whose ideologies differed so greatly that it reduced the topic to nothing more than a battleground.

It is my hope that we can return to just voicing our opinions without venomous retorts and nit-picking that so commonly plagues debates on topics such as this, so that we do not regret the locking of the Deep End and the creation of the Philosopher's Corner.


Regards,

Major Nuker

[Dr. Strangelove]

Blaat85, on 27 Apr 2007, 16:30, said:

LCPL Carrow, on 27 Apr 2007, 15:22, said:

@ food/fly on the wall argument: What, prithee, is that food or that fly on the wall ever going to amount to? What would it even have the potential to amount to? Your arguments are void because a fly is never going to accomplish any great achievement, nor is a cow, or a pig, or a chicken, or a corn plant, or a wheat plant, or a...you get the picture. It's not that human life is necessarily more important than other life, but human lives are the ones with the ability and the potential to affect the world. I'd just love to see a double whopper with cheese find a cure for cancer or aids.

Aids or cancer are things that affect human beings, not flies. You define achievement by your own standards, you have no idea what is important for a fly..

And yet anther potential argument...

Therefore, by what you are saying, every time we refuse to have sex we are denying a "potential" human being a chance to live. why don't we just let people rape us? It would be wrong to kill "potential" lives by not fucking off every second of our lives!

[Golan]

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 23:27, said:

Quote

There is a difference in denying a potential (independent) life and ending an existing one.

Yep. It's more severe to end an existing one, because "what if" is just a vessel for thought and the basis of countless shitty arguments.

An existing life can be valued and you can quite aswell see if it´s fucked up or not.

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 23:27, said:

Quote

Free will is much more important than your sense of righteousness and domineering those that can´t speak for themselfs.

Let's start asking the embryos whether they want to live or not, then. Or were you just getting at my face?

No, incase you haven´t realised, that´s exactly what I´m talking about. Give them a chance to voice their oppinion.

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 23:27, said:

Quote

People can´t decide which is the least loss. How could they? How should they know? "Hey, are you gonna abort? - No, I made bad experiences the last 27 times, I guess I can say it´s not a good idea."
Yes, it doesn´t have a free will or at least can´t act it out. But it will have one. Disregarding this is like going trough a hospital and switching off the life-support machines of comatous patients...

From their life situation, I think it'll be possible to make a sound decision for many. Atleast it will be better than if you or I would make it for them.

I guess you´re right on this one. It all comes down to what one values higher.

Mathias, on 27 Apr 2007, 23:27, said:

Quote

And murder is defined as the planned killing of another person.

Bravo!

Leatherneck, on 27 Apr 2007, 22:19, said:

What do we do with meat? We eat it. What do we do with a dead baby? We don't put it to much use now do we? I support the murder of food sources because I need it to survive and get protein and whatnot. But yo usupport the killing of a HUMAN just to save the (albeit careless) mother a day of pain.

Well, both "killings" are made for a reason. It´s not like aborting a child would be just for fun.

Edited by Golan, 28 April 2007 - 07:51.

[Anon45566]

Abortion = Murder

Leave it at that.

It is only acceptable if the mother will die in childbirth, and must give-up her baby... NOT if people do unacceptable things and wish to cover up the evidence just to keep their families dignity intact....

Hope you guys get it now.

-Hinata Prime

[CodeCat]

Hinata Prime, on 30 Apr 2007, 00:34, said:

Hope you guys get it now.

That attitude won't get you very far, considering this is an open discussion forum.

[Anon45566]

Hmmm... thanks for letting me know.

Let me rephrase that: "Hope you guys agree with me." XD

[Whitey]

Which they most certainly do not.

I do, and I do very strongly Abortion saves nothing but the mother a small time of pain. But it ends a human life in the process.

[Anon45566]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Leatherneck, on 30 Apr 2007, 00:57, said:

Which they most certainly do not.

I do, and I do very strongly Abortion saves nothing but the mother a small time of pain. But it ends a human life in the process.

Don't say it is just a small time of extreme pain, there are many other things it syas her, to many to mention right now.

then again if:

Abortion=murder

then by that logic

not having sex=murder

refusing to be raped=murder

having ED=murder

[Vaughan]

Pro-Life, and Pro-Adoption. Why? I was almost killed, I was adopted. simple as that.

If I had the choice now to save an innocent child's life, or kill it, there would be no choice at all, because I was once one of them, the ones about to be drilled through the head, with no chance at a life.

Therefore, would be in no position to support an innocent child being aborted, I may as well murder myself the second I support it. I've been given a second chance at life, so should every unborn child.

Abortion is Murder, and shame on the women who want to throw away something so beautiful and with such potential for the sparing of about a day of pain. Give the child up for abortion, and sleep well knowing that what may have even been a mistake, or concieved by a crime, may become something great.

So, to me, there are two options.

1. Go ahead and murder the child, spare yourself a little bit of pain, and be content.
2. Continue with birth, give the child up for abortion if you can't take care of it, and think of your child every day, and know that you saved a life.

If we consider Fetuses un-human because they are unborn, we may as well kill every mentally-disabled person in the world for being not as intellectually advanced as the others around them.

If you're pro-abortion, I'd like you to come to me and drill my head open, then toss me in a garbage can, after all, that was what was supposed to happen, wasn't it?

This is my view, my own experience, and thank God, I am here.

Sincerely,

~V.

Edited by Vaughan, 04 May 2007 - 00:44.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Once again, it is not just a day of pain, but many other things as well.

Your analogy of a fetus and menrally ill person is inaccurate. how can a fetus lose its life it it never had one in the first place?The fetus has never crawled,eaten,slept, cried or even had a single memory. They can't feel the pain of losing a life if they never had one. Also, a living person has relatives that will cry over his death, people don't cry over dead fetuses because they never knew them. There is a HUGE(!) distinction between an unborn, a newborn, and a mentally ill person.

BUT!

If we did illegalize abortion, many pregnant women would turn to dangerous back-alley quacks with no sanitation stards of safety procedures.

Edited by The Outsider, 04 May 2007 - 02:29.

[Vaughan]

Quote

Once again, it is not just a day of pain, but many other things as well.

Your analogy of a fetus and menrally ill person is inaccurate. how can a fetus lose its life it it never had one in the first place?The fetus has never crawled,eaten,slept, cried or even had a single memory. They can't feel the pain of losing a life if they never had one. Also, a living person has relatives that will cry over his death, people don't cry over dead fetuses because they never knew them. There is a HUGE(!) distinction between an unborn, a newborn, and a mentally ill person.

Yes, but all this assumes that life begins at birth. I believe life begins at conception, at the very beginning of a Human. (Without taking into account the actual sperm process and whatnot, just the point where a woman is considered "Pregnant".)