Help Me Understand

[Desk trauma]

How about KILLING a child against the child's will???

At the stage of development when abortions take place in reality the fetus likely has nothing that can be considered "will".

The mother can give the child for adoption.

If she wants to continue to that point she can but just as I cannot be forced to give blood or organs to give another life a woman cannot be forced to give her body to an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Is the human sperm or egg a person too? They are alive and both have human DNA?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Does the child have a will? Do animals that we kill to eat have a will? Is it selfish to kill animals just because we think they taste nice?

At what point does the child become a potential person? If you could have lots of sex with lots of women but don't aren't you being selfish not giving those potential children a chance to live?

We're all just chemical reactions. Free will is an illusion, and you only think you are typing on the keyboard because that's what the chemical reactions tell you.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON



Closed for review. Please check out the rules on Controversial Topics.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

​

​

​

Thread has been moved to the Ethics & Morality Forum. Please remember this rule:

● Abortion may only be discussed in the Ethics & Morality forum, the Christian Philosophy and Ethics forum, and the Congregation and Recovery categories within the limits of the rules for those areas.

Mod Hat Off​

​

​

​

 

[1776]

If she wants to continue to that point she can but just as I cannot be forced to give blood or organs to give another life a woman cannot be forced to give her body to an unwanted pregnancy.

1. If she willingly does an action that leads to pregnancy, how is this the child's fault? Does this child not deserve a chance at life just because the mother considers herself more important than the child? This child did nothing wrong.

2. Even if she is pregnant by an unwilling action (ie. rape), how is this the child's fault? Does ending this child's life fix the wrong that was done? Again, why is this child being punished for something it cannot help?

 

[Desk trauma]

1. If she willingly does an action that leads to pregnancy, how is this the child's fault? Does this child not deserve a chance at life just because the mother considers herself more important than the child? This child did nothing wrong.

2. Even if she is pregnant by an unwilling action (ie. rape), how is this the child's fault? Does ending this child's life fix the wrong that was done? Again, why is this child being punished for something it cannot help?

It is not a matter of fault, only rights. The rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus she is carrying.

 

[yasic]

Is the human sperm or egg a person too? They are alive and both have human DNA?

I am going to have to argue against the notion that a sperm is a human, biologically you can make a decent case against it.

However, an egg (fertilized or not) is human by pretty much all biological definitions.

 

[Shane Roach]

Health care costs do not go up or down directly in proportion to how healthy a lifestyle the average person lives. An unhealthy person might die of a massive coronary and save the whole system tons of dollars. A healthy person might linger with various problems well into their 90's and cost a metric ton.

More to the point, no one asked for government mandated and payed-for health care, so how much it costs me to pay my medical bills is truly none of anyone else's business. If someone bases their "altruism" on whether or not I am too fat for them to care about, I question their altruism and certainly do not want them running the health care system.

I'm not the hugest Anne Coulter fan, but she is a guilty pleasure of mine when I agree with her, and she wrote some time back that the problem with the health care bill is that it basically gives Democrats a way to achieve their entire agenda simply by systematically proclaiming everything they want a health care issue. Sort of like this...

I don't particularly care about this, but doesn't unhealthy eating make health costs go up?

 

[variant]

How about KILLING a child against the child's will???

Will?

The mother can give the child for adoption. Shouldn't the child have the choice if they want to live or die? What kind of person doesn't give that choice to their own child? It is pure, 100%, selfishness on that woman's part to kill that innocent child.

We're talking about people being forced to birth children. Do you say that this is no great imposition?

Something simmilar to buying to cups of soda instead of one? Because that is the only argument I made in this thread.

 

[now faith]

H

Obesity is one of the number one contributors to high healthcare costs. I believe only smoking tops obesity. You can't fix a state nor a country if you don't reduce healthcare costs. Relating this to abortion? I guess you can make the comparison if you're a pro-lifer, however abortions dont drive up healthcare costsso, it's a stretch at best. Also, isn't gluttony mentioned somewhere as being a no, no? There should be overwhelming support for this here, I would think.

Your label for the other poster, tells me a lot about you. The term pro choice reference, we have a choice to murder or not because it is our body , our child. The label pro lifer, is the issue . Years ago they tried to say a fetus was not a human,or alive, well with that not working they moved to the subject between choice and life. Choice people have created justified murder, and put lipstick on a pig by calling it choice. The whole concept is a oxymoron. A woman has a baby kills it and is charged with murder. A woman has a abortion no matter how late , and there is no problem. But now they have stepped out of shadows and out right say they oppose life and its their choice to kill it . So a mad man blows up a abortion mill and murders and it is a crime against. Humanity all over the news the lunatic pro lifer murders! All the time the abortion mill has murdered thousands, with no concern at all. What if a woman was having a abortion and the child's father killed her his baby as much as hers a child has all his blood from father only, would the father have the free walk of pro choice? The sad thing is we have to have post like this at all that in a nation so blessed and overall Christian .

 

[flicka]

OP, it's easily explained. Politicians try to do whatever they want to make a name for themselves. It doesn't have to mean something.
Besides, abortion and soda have nothing in common and there are tons of things you "can't do" while still being able to have an abortion. Logic..use it.

 

[quatona]

"It's my body I can do what I want with it" even if that means killing a baby, but ordering a 17 oz soda won't be tolerated? I would agree that obesity is a problem in America, but I just can't figure out what twisted logic liberals are using to justify banning large sodas (which are actually only around 8oz with ice) while still allowing abortion. Any liberals out there brave enough to try and explain this one to us?http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...rt_a_baby_prochoice_drink_a_slurpee_no_choice

I´m liberal, and I am neither for killing babies nor for prohibitng 15oz sodas. So I´m the wrong person to explain the rationale to you.

 

[now faith]

OP, it's easily explained. Politicians try to do whatever they want to make a name for themselves. It doesn't have to mean something.
Besides, abortion and soda have nothing in common and there are tons of things you "can't do" while still being able to have an abortion. Logic..use it.

Logic unless you don't consider murder high on the list of do's and don't s or things you can do.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Personhood is the real issue not if the fetus is human.

Question for you or any pro-choicers out there -- when do you think "personhood" begins? Considering a lot of neural development occurs after the baby is born, I don't buy any argument that says it begins when the child is self-sustaining (as in, not relying on a placenta for nourishment) because the child will rely on others outside of the womb (not sure if people still use this argument, though).

I guess I've come to my own personal conclusion that abortions in the first trimester are completely okay, given that this is the time when organs are in their primordial development, and it definitely has not reached "personhood" yet (however we define it). But second trimester on, things get a bit blurry for me. Thoughts?