Twilightsfire

FYI: It isn't human at that stage. Heck, it's little better than a sneeze away from getting aborted.

Bad analogy. Both people are human.
If I could have made any expression? Probably thank her.

Pro-Lifers always claim they are thinking of the "baby." Well, newsflash; A lot of peoples lives suck. Badly. (Suicide rates are on the increase)
What would you think of your mother if you were born disabled? I know of one example who wanted to know why her mother hated her enough to make her live through this hell that is her life. (Born paraplegic) And knowing this one example, I shouldn't wonder if there were many others who felt this way.

Some seem to imagine that having sex means you're ready to have children. And that isn't true at all.

billybones468

Thats complete bullshit I know a lot of disabled people who are happy with their lives even brain damaged people. Don't try to pull off that they would be happy if they were aborted. Very few people want to die. My little brother had downs syndrome and he didn't want to die.
What next aborting kids because the parents don't like there child's nose.

__________________
The nice thing about being right is that you don't have to change your mind.


"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Twilightsfire

Its someone I know personally.

It's not about a parent liking a fetus' nose. (What did I actually type?)

It was how a person felt when she was all grown up and realized the situation she was in.

But I guess it's ok to wait for them to commit suicide.

billybones468

I have less problem with suicide because its there own choice.
What i meant the nose thing was people shouldn't have the right to abort for trivial things.

__________________
The nice thing about being right is that you don't have to change your mind.


"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Locke9-05

Incorrect. There is no scientific or any kind of evidentiary standard you can find to support this. A sperm cell is simply a tool of sexual reproduction as is an egg. They are mass produced and discarded naturally over a human lifetime. There is no way you can compare a human life with an entire support system, vitals, a beating heart, spinal cord, etc. to a sperm cell--a tool for reproduction that by the body's own standards is considered expendable.
This makes absolutely no sense. If a condom was worn, there would have been no conception at all. There is no wearing the condom (the night of the conception) unless the condom failed to work... That's the whole damn point. Condoms are designed to prevent conception. Granted they're not foolproof, and there are even warnings for that (hello?!), obviously the best way to ensure that an "unwanted child" isn't conceived is to not engage in idiotic "indulgent" sex--going against the very purpose of sexual reproduction. But hell, obviously people won't learn that much, so at best we can stop murdering the human offspring (the human beings) created as a result and find humane alternatives.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Not Amused

Indeed this makes no sense.

Are you seriously telling everyone that one should not indulge in 'indulgent sex', that one should only 'indulge' in sex if one wants to reproduce?

If so, here lies one absolutely tangible reason why one should most definitely not consider the purely emotional reasoning put forward by those who advocate Pro Life and wish for Termination to be made illegal.

Further reasoning why the motives of those who advocate the abolishment of Termination should be questioned is, that not once have I ever witnessed during debate exactly what they suggest we do with all the unwanted children as a result of such law being enforced.

Sorry but the old adage 'adoption' is neither a simple, or practical answer.

Are Pro Lifers willing to pay more taxes indefinitely to ensure that each and every one of these unwanted children will be cared for properly (we are talking millions of children year on year), educated and loved? I somehow doubt it.

It is so easy for such advocates to state " there are lots of childless couples out there, waiting to adopt", although true, the yearly termination numbers we are talking about here, far exceeds the number of childless couples.

This argument is not well thought out, does not take into consideration for example, the many emotional problems adopted children suffer later in life, regardless of the pro lifers rosy view of adoption. They also do not take into account the economic and emotional problems faced by those women (and often their existing family) who have to endure a unwanted pregnancy to full term.

Pro Lifers insist every child has a right to life. That in itself is fine and dandy, yet they do not, whilst advocating such so called altruistic thinking, consider the tremendous hardship faced by families who really cannot afford to add to their numbers.

They do not think further than the end of their noses quite frankly, because as long as a foetus is allowed to be born, they honestly appear not to give a hoot about what comes afterwards for a child born into such an environment, where he/she faces open hostility, from the mother who did not want the child in the first place and from society as a whole. (especially in the USA)

An embryo or foetus up to 10 weeks gestation has as much capacity for thinking or feeling, as for example, a bloody apple, this is fact, until the neural tube is completely developed it might as well be described as frog spawn, a bunch of developing cells.

If one looks at the stats available all over the world, one sees that the majority of terminations take place in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

This is not terminating the chubby, smiling, laughing fully developed baby Pro lifers would have us believe. A tiny proportion of the terminations carried out are late term.

I also ask, how many of the pro lifers out there would be willing to give the proportion of extremely handicapped feotuses that are aborted late term, a home and to spend the rest of their lives tending to their many needs ?

That would be altruism.

The truth is, the majority of the late term terminations, are those carried out on women who are carrying extremely handicapped foetuses.

So let us please try to remember that when Pro Lifers spout their rhetoric, they have only their own needs in mind, not the probable needs of millions of unwanted children they will gladly see born, but then abandon.

Locke9-05

Sex is not intended as an indulgence. That's the point. Sex has a purpose in this world and the same irresponsible people who are at the heart of this debate are the ones who over time have destroyed that purpose and made it something it isn't. Sex is for reproduction. It's an urge that is designed to ensure the continuation of our race as a species. If you can provide me with some evidence or factual standard that shows sex to be something "more" than that, I'll gladly discuss it with you.
Oh right, the reason being that those supporting life see that there's it's totally illogical to bend and destroy the purpose of something simple and scientific even, taking the desires that come with it and running with them only to kill the human being that is created as a result. Ah, yes the one tangible reason. Because we value the life of the innocent, you mean? We see sexual irresponsibility leading up to murder as the sick and appalling "act" that it is?
You asked the question, let me go ahead and answer it. Yes. Oh look at that. You have your answer. "Yes." You "doubted" but you were wrong because I told you what I as a strong supporter of the pro-life ideals would be willing to do. I would pay as much as it takes. Money isn't an issue when it comes to life. I find it absurd and even a little distasteful that you'd bring up money, taxes and expenses in an issue like this as a front against those who oppose the appalling practice of legal murder. I would much rather people learn to stop being foolish when it comes to sex and encourage adoption against abortion by law, but I would still pay as much as it takes.
What does that tell you? It tells you that far too many people are sexually irresponsible and willing to murder because of it. There's no reason to "terminate" or murder a human being because of a foolish or irresponsible choice. On the contrary, that's sick, inhumane and despicable. Adoption is the logical, compassionate and humane option and calling it "unpractical" is simply an illogical cop-out. Especially when innocent human lives are being destroyed because of that cop-out.
You can't project these blanket scenarios over every adoption scenario and hope your argument comes across as sounding even somewhat logical. That's absurd. There are situations where children put through the adoption process suffer emotional problems, yes. But those numbers and situations are highly exaggerated when it comes to using that argument against advocating for life. Adoption gives children the chance to live... It is the follow through of the chance that they were given by their parents, without their biological parents actually having to raise them. That in and of itself destroys the basis of abortion. It's so incredibly immoral--I can't imagine even contemplating killing a new innocent human life. There's no justification for it.
Oh and you'd say not every child has a right to life? Is that what you're saying? I'm curious now and a little taken aback. No, not every child. Every innocent human being has the right to life. They have the right to live on this earth--why would we play God over the lives of those just created merely because their foolish irresponsible parents decided now that they don't want them?
This is one of the most illogical arguments I've heard pop up in this debate. What's the logical course of action or maybe "non-action" if you don't want or can't afford to support any more children in a family? Don't have kids. Parents who can't support children making a choice that results in more children is illogical in and of itself. Then to top it off, they'd rather murder the human result than find a humane alternative.
Do not make insulting or offensive generalizations regarding people who support a cause or belief. You may make the comments against the arguments in support of the cause, you may even make the comments against the cause itself, but you may not make insulting comments against those who support the cause. This is your warning.

That whole paragraph was a generalization not supported by any facts against people who support a cause, not the cause itself. It was a rhetoric rant against pro-life supporters themselves (without any substance or backing) rather than against their arguments or claims. Do not pollute the topic with such low-class comments.

If one makes the claims, one must back them up or else they mean jack. That's how debate works. To come in here and make a claim and then act like you expect your opponents to go verify it by looking at "stats available all over the world" is absolutely absurd. That's not how this goes. Your claim means nothing unless you can support it with those facts. I know it's untrue anyway, but I'll wait to see if you really can find those "stats" you're talking about.
There are extremely handicapped people out in the world. Should we just "abort" them too? "Mercy" kill them all? What an absurd and sick concept--to kill something because it's handicapped or different. First of all, this isn't about the individuals who support the cause, you'd do well to remember that--again... Secondly, the real burden of morality falls on the shoulders of those who apparently have to contemplate killing a human life because it's handicapped or different.
And you would do well to remember that this is about the issue not the people supporting the issue. When you make generic blanket statements like the great many in the post above, it encompasses and is probably insulting to a great deal of people. You can criticize their arguments, but to attack the individuals supporting a cause is just low-class and frankly it won't be tolerated here. Also, I have yet to see your "statistics" or claims supported with any facts.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Locke9-05

Yes, one sperm and one egg are required to create one human being. Millions of sperm cells are created in one day and disposed of naturally. The same with an egg (not in such numbers, of course), if they are not fertilized, after a period of time, they are disposed of by the body itself. A human being that is created--one that has its own life support system, beating heart, spinal cord, brain, etc. is not intended to be killed by outside sources. We are not meant to rip a human being out of the womb and kill it. We are not meant to physically alter that course of nature in any way.
Yes, I understand, you've made this point many many times and I've addressed it equally as much. The key word here is naturally. The human body naturally stillbirths them. The body that is pregnant, not some doctor or outside source manipulating and screwing with nature--playing God for completely and utterly selfish reasons. I understand your point, but the key difference and the crucial significance in this issue is nature.
No, the fetus is the result of reproduction. Scientifically and by every other standards, the fetus is what results from reproduction. Tools are used to create. The end result of that creation is not a tool. It's the product. And in this case, we're talking about a living breathing human being. There's no logical reason to kill it. The only reasons for doing such a thing are selfish ones. Why kill a human being for selfish reasons? That goes against all principles of moral humanity, even. It's unnatural and wrong by every standard.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Locke9-05

Let's analyze the wording of my argument, then let's analyze your reply. I said

"We are not meant to physically alter that course of nature in any way."

There--in bold--lies another key word (one that defines the context of my argument) that was seemingly either missed or ignored. "That course of nature"--meaning specifically involved with the idea of the life or death of an innocent human being. The scientific developments you listed off are all improvements designed to benefit humanity--they're all designed to ease pain and suffering. They're good--to put it bluntly. Abortion is killing a human being for selfish reasons. It's neither good nor logical--it's selfish and immoral by all standards of civility. The context that was missed there specified a certain course of nature that should not be toyed with as it's neither logical nor moral to alter it in the ways that abortion does. That's the argument there--and your "counterpoint" took the argument a bit out of the context it was in.
The sperm and egg do not equal a human being. No scientist would confirm nor agree with your point, I challenge you to support your argument with some standard of evidence that suggests, even, that one sperm cell and one egg cell--out of the many that are created and disposed of are considered equal to that of the fetus in the process of sexual reproduction. One fetus equals a unique and individual human life with human support systems, a beating heart, a brain, a spinal cord, etc. that will grow and develop and live a long life that nature intends it to. One sperm cell equals the same as millions and millions of others that are produced in a factory-like setting for one single purpose--to fertlize an egg. Only one of those released in the process of reproduction will even make the journey, the rest are killed off by the systems in the female's body.

The egg is a part of the female's reproductive system among the many many others that--if not fertilized--will simply be discarded and another will take its place. They are not unique new human beings. They do not equal new lives. They are not scientifically human, nor can one sperm cell or one egg be considered vital to the reproductive process--by any logical standard. The human fetus is unique, it has a distinct human support system, it has a beating heart, a brain, a spinal cord, etc. and unless it is naturally stillbirthed--nature intends that it grow and develop and live its human life. The only manipulation of that process by us is negative and harmful--murderous even. That's the one distinct difference between abortion and those other surgeries and medical developments you mentioned as distortions of nature.
And I've shown studies that say the fetus is neurologically and in so many other ways not any different from an infant. Unless the fetus is naturally stillbirthed like you said, nature itself intends for that human being to grow and develop and live its human life. You can deny the humanity of a fetus, but scientifically--which is the essential grounds for this debate even, a fetus is a human being. Biologically, life starts at conception. That's irrefutable. A fetus is human not only by its DNA and genetic material but also by the life systems it has--a beating heart, a brain, spinal cord, etc. And now studies are showing that fetuses are really no different from infants neurologically and they probably even dream and think very basic infant-like thoughts. There's really no way to "determine" that a fetus isn't a human being, the evidence is weighted so heavily against that claim. And the absurd and even sick thing is that abortions have been going on long before people even thought to investigate whether the fetus might feel pain. That much still hasn't been confirmed, yet abortions still go on. That only proves how selfish and disgusting of a "practice" it is.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Platinumney

Well i think in a perfect world banning abortion might make irresponsible people think twice about unprotected sex but the world is no were near perfect it would just mean more children being raised by children.