|
Post by Soidanae on Sept 27, 2004 17:01:23 GMT -5
They haven't had life. Granted, they might have done something great, they could have done something horrible.
But it doesn't really matter-there's no life and no sentience there.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Sept 27, 2004 17:15:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't be against that then, since it did endanger her life. She had good reason. Abortion is so final...who knows what that person could have done in their lifetime, had it not been unfairly ended? People ask why God doesn't send a cure for cancer and such, and think: Perhaps he did, but we aborted the person who would have one day discovered it? Food for thought. ok, and another thing---if god wanted someone to make a cure for cancer, and he has everything plotted out, then he'd be able to a. choose someone who would not get aborted or b. choose someone else to cure cancer. But doesn't that child deserve a chance to live? anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter....because the child doesn't know about life. doesn't know what it's missing out on. what it doesn't know won't hurt 'im. also, if you feel you're incapable of taking care of a child, i think it would be less cruel to abort it. sure, there have been people from bad surroundings who grew up alright, but they probably had it hard. capti: also, there's a difference between making people unhappy and killing them.
|
|
|
Post by Salmonella on Sept 27, 2004 17:22:48 GMT -5
Erm, I think I'm done now. I have no other comments.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Sept 27, 2004 17:29:23 GMT -5
Erm, I think I'm done now. I have no other comments. thanx 4 sharin!!!!!1111
|
|
Antenora
Detriment Deleter
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on Sept 27, 2004 17:29:38 GMT -5
can't it work the other way, too? can't it work that we also aborted a mass-murderer, a new hitler, perhaps? Have you heard about how Hitler's mother seriously thought about getting an abortion until her doctor talked her out of it? Aye! Your comment on "a new Hitler" made me think of that. In cases where the mother would be very likely to die from being pregnant or because of childbirth, the question of abortion comes down to this: which life is more valuble, that of the mother or that of the unborn child--who would probably not even make it if the mother dies whilst pregnant?
|
|
|
Post by artluvr on Sept 27, 2004 18:39:36 GMT -5
Abortion is so final...who knows what that person could have done in their lifetime, had it not been unfairly ended? People ask why God doesn't send a cure for cancer and such, and think: Perhaps he did, but we aborted the person who would have one day discovered it? Food for thought. God's supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient. He could have: a) changed that person's heart so that they wouldn't have aborted the child b) sent countless foetii so that at least one of them would have been born c) put the cure for cancer in some other scientist's head or on a scrap of paper or something. Also: people WILL NOT stop having abortions if it becomes against the law (sup mistar happy coat hangar). People were having abortions before it was legal, anyway. All legalizing it did was bring them into the "mainstream" and a much safer and sterilized environment.
|
|
|
Post by Soidanae on Sept 27, 2004 19:56:27 GMT -5
If you make guns illegal, only outlaws will have guns.
Same theory. Perfectly corrct. It's safer when it's legal, because then it can be regulated.
|
|
|
Post by embah on Sept 27, 2004 20:11:59 GMT -5
People say that abortion is illegal and wrong, but according to the law it's not, so until the law changes that, it's legal. in another discussion we've had on abortion, i put in the legal circumstances of abortion, they were that you can get it done under the circumstances of: financial (economic) issues, abuse (eg, rape), health issues (where you or the child could be in danger with going through with the birth). and there were more but i can't remember them.
Also, legally, a fetus isn't a human, so therefore it's not classed as murder. to be a human, it has to take it's first breath, and some also argue that it must be able to function systemmatically (eg, nerves, respiratory etc.) this case has been argued over the years but it still remains that it's not 'a human'.
as for adoption: i agree with adoption, because what about people who can't have but want a child? or people who want a child but just don't want to go through pregnancy? also, it gives unwanted or abused children a home and a chance to start a new life. also, it's not like the 'social workers' (or whatever u call them people who work at adoption agencies) just hand the kids to anyone. they do background checks on the would-be parents and everything.
|
|
|
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 28, 2004 15:15:50 GMT -5
If you make guns illegal, only outlaws will have guns. Same theory. Perfectly corrct. It's safer when it's legal, because then it can be regulated. I understand that abortion can't be made completely illegal. But I think it should be more tightly controlled: if you don't want the child, or can't care for it, THEN PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION!! Abortion is fine when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, because the mother deserves to live and the baby probably won't survive anyway. I would understand abortion if there was no other way to get rid of an unwanted child, but there is, and adoption gives many wonderful people children. Example: My aunt and uncle are great people, but my aunt is sterile. They adopted a baby boy from the Hagar Raphael orphanage in Guatamala, and he has been a joy to them. He was rescued from an impovershed country, and they got a child. Everyone wins. And nobody dies. But for abortion to occur less, a few other things must occur: 1) The adoption and foster care systems, especially in the U.S., need to be redone. Currently they're so innefficiant and counterproductive that it actually discourages people from adopting. 2) It needs to be easier to put a child up for adoption. If a young mother is shown that it takes less work to put her child up for adoption then to abort it, she's much more likely to choose adoption. 3) (I know a few of you won't believe this, but it's true) Feminists need to stop suppressing data. Many of them believe that abortion "empowers" a woman or something, so they suppress some anti-abortion research. Such as the fact that many, many women are pressured into, or choose to have, an abortion and then need therapy for years afterwards to cope with their choice. Man that was one long post.
|
|
|
Post by MelonB1088 on Sept 28, 2004 15:47:41 GMT -5
Example: My aunt and uncle are great people, but my aunt is sterile. They adopted a baby boy from the Hagar Raphael orphanage in Guatamala, and he has been a joy to them. He was rescued from an impovershed country, and they got a child. Everyone wins. And nobody dies. M: They adopted a child from an impoverished country. This is DEFINATELY a good thing, as those children need homes. E: The point is--there are already an overage of THOSE children, ones that ALREADY need homes. M: More people putting more children up for adoption could, and probably would, just fill the world with homeless, family-less children.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Sept 28, 2004 16:07:24 GMT -5
M: They adopted a child from an impoverished country. This is DEFINATELY a good thing, as those children need homes. E: The point is--there are already an overage of THOSE children, ones that ALREADY need homes. M: More people putting more children up for adoption could, and probably would, just fill the world with homeless, family-less children. J: Exactly. C: Plus, taxes might need to be raised for your idea, redwine.You know how Americans get. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by redwine with valium on Sept 28, 2004 16:33:06 GMT -5
J: Exactly. C: Plus, taxes might need to be raised for your idea, redwine.You know how Americans get. Do you? Now my political beliefs get involved. I think the government is way to big already, so I think we should cut the money to big, pointless parts of the national government and redirect it to this.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Sept 28, 2004 16:35:23 GMT -5
Now my political beliefs get involved. I think the government is way to big already, so I think we should cut the money to big, pointless parts of the national government and redirect it to this. Your homework for tonight: Define "pointless" and give some examples.
|
|
|
Post by Soidanae on Sept 28, 2004 18:05:49 GMT -5
Now, I'm going ot enjoy teraing apart probably everything you come up with, just be warned.
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Sept 28, 2004 18:24:00 GMT -5
C: And if she says nothing is more important than a child's life, I'll just gag....
|
|