Abortion

Then you have something wrong with you my friend. You have sensitivity problems and likely need some assistance. Any normal person would find those images highly disturbing.

Somebody who is not affected by those images and the harm being done isn't worth debating with as they have no emotional basis upon which one can prove a point. I'm sorry sir, I'll no longer debate with you on this topic.

Anybody else with a soul is free to post something and I'll gladly respond.

PS- I'm not saying you can't post Shredder,I have no jurisdiction over that of course, but I won't likely respond to it.

 

Okay in the United States, we do NOT have full property on our own body. There are laws prohibiting certain things, it is NOT our sole decision.

You cannot drink and drive.
You cannot sell your body in prostitution.
And lastly, you cannot run around naked in public...
WHY?
Because we have laws prohibiting it...
and I'd like to think me running around naked would be a less bit severe than murdering an un-born child.


There should be laws against abortion.

 

Yes put the child of for adoption when it may never see new parents again as it is.

And if you are thinking about adoption's, it cost a shit load. On average, it cost's around $30k USD to adopt a child. You are basically selling the child anyways.

 

A bit off topic, but don't you think it would have been easier to actually link to the images instead of posting them directly...? I like browsing forums without having to worry about seeing dead fetuses.

Thanks.

 

I said I wouldn't respond, but hell, I'm a sucker for a debate. =p

Ok, so if the baby is inside the uterus when it's killed it makes a difference? The baby will be outside in a small amount of time. By that logic killing a baby seconds before it's outside of the uterus is completely fine. While when it's outside of the women it's not acceptable? Failed logic.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean about sacrificing a 20 year old man. Perhaps you quoted the wrong thing?

EDIT: I just understood the thing about the 20 year old man.

Yes, I would kill the 20 year old man if he posed a threat upon the woman that would put her in a situation leading to death 100%. The same as an infant stuck in the fallopian tube. It is nearly 100% positive that she'll die if the child is not aborted.

* But an infant in the uterus doesn't have the right to life, just because it's inside of a woman?

 

So a life isn't worth $30k? It's better dead?

And sorry Cp_, I tried my best to warn. I wanted to get the point across.

Oh, and by the way. Notice Cp_'s humane like reaction to the dead fetuses. He's HIGHLY DISTURBED BY SEEING DEAD BABIES. Unlike the insensitive and uncaring soul of Shredder...

Just thought I'd point that out.

A note for Shredder- You're a highly intellectual person. You debate flawlessly with pure logic, rationale and ingenuity. Yet, at some point emotion and sensitivity on a matter as fragile as the killing of a child has to come into play. I see that as a downside for your debating prowess. Other than that; Bravo! Truly a class act.

 

Most people do not have $30k sitting in the bank to spend willy nilly. I know that I don't.

 

Abortion should be legal. I don't see why it's so bad for the poor little baby, because a fetus cannot comprehend nor feel. Without emotions and comprehension abilities, life and death is equally neutral.

Also, when do you anti-abortionists consider a fertilized egg "human"? When someone has sex with a condom, millions of sperm cells dies - all potential babies. Same thing applies with masturbation, birth control pills and the good ol' fashion pull-out method. Which means that all potent males are guilty of mass-infanticide.

 

It is legal isnt it? and theres a huge difference between masturbating and killing an unborn baby. weather you masturbate or not the sperm still dies, they dont last long. you are constantly preducing sperm, as it is constantly dieing.

and killing an unborn baby is no different to killing a born baby. just because the baby is inside her doesnt make it not a baby.

preventing life is completely different to taking life. an unborn baby is a living human being, sperm isnt. pulling out/birth control isnt killing, its only preventing.

 

As I already stated, an unborn baby has no feelings, no thoughts, no memories. Therefore, it has nothing to lose as it havn't experienced life.

If you have a million USD, and I take them away from you, wouldn't you feel a bit fucked over? Obviously yes. Now, you don't have a million dollars, but you don't feel fucked over, do you? You cannot miss something you never had.

An unborn baby -- or any other braindead person for that matter -- has a state that is quite similar to a vegetable, and should therefore be treated as one. Much like how mental patients are treated as mental patients, and gets less benefits from society.

 

Can you justify that? Is there something there to back up? On what logical basis do you proclaim that normal people would be disturbed, and if you're not disturbed, you're not normal?

You're certainly right - the emotional argument won't work on me. Were you aiming for that, as opposed to the logical argument?

Quite right. The existence of those laws doesn't give that position the moral high ground, however.

Why?

It is certainly not failed logic. That is when the baby becomes seperate from the mother, and is a seperate life.

I'm not saying that he is posing a threat to the woman. I'm saying that he is going about his business, causing no harm to anybody, and through a series of odd circumstances, you have the option to sacrifice his life to save a random woman's. Would you?

Quite right.

Well, cheers! Being emotional can lead to irrationality, however. I wouldn't wish to make an irrational decision!

 

*Can Lead*. Yes I would agree. Emotion can be very irrational indeed. However I feel it to be a necessary component of a sensitive argument. If you were conducting a debate on this matter in a formal setting and those pictures were displayed and you said they had no effect on you, then the majority of the judges/ jury would find you to be void of any humane emotion. Potentially ruining the argument as you don't have shared human characteristics.

 

My girlfriend had an abortion, And it was the biggest mistake of my life asking her..

 

They probably would find me insensitive, however, if this were a legal debate, they would be required to come to a logical conclusion, devoid of any emotion.

 

Myself being primarily a libertarian, I am really unsure how to fix this problem. And that is what it is - a problem.

A fetus (or even embryo) IS a human. It is life. Don't try to refute this, it's fact. It contains all the essential makings for a human and even a fertilized egg has all DNA necessary for a human. This means this unborn human has rights. Murder is an act of aggression, a TRUE crime. The mother and doctor have murdered a child and infringed on the unborn baby's right to life and liberty(unalienable, don't go there).

I am not naive. I realize people will perform "backyard abortions". I know that babies will have shitty lives living with crack head moms. I know adoption doesn't work all the time and I know living in an orphanage is a horrible thing. However, we must focus on the liberties of the unborn child. If you claim a fetus is property but when it's born 3 seconds later it's a life with rights, I can't even talk to you.



Also, for the record I am not offended if you choose to get an abortion. I also wouldn't really care if you killed some guy down the street. That's not the point. It IS a crime. You violated the rights of another. That is that. Really though, this should be like the last priority in enforcing. I'd rather have my tax dollars going to road and murders before jailing up someone who killed her baby.

 

Rather naive to assume that a jury uses no emotion in their verdict.

I just thought of another thing also. Why is it considered a double homicide if a woman is killed who is also pregnant? This is because the baby is considered life also.

 

Babies can feel without a shadow of a doubt. The matter of comprehension is questionable, and most likely negative. However, before making such blunderous errors I'd highly suggest you do some research next time.

 

It's a life, but it's not really a human life.

Why not?

If they do, their decision is thrown out. They have to back it up with the law.

If the mother considers it to be such, then sure. Yet this is an inconsistent philosophy, since if a woman is pregnant for two months, then she can get an abortion with impunity.

Sure they can. I don't particularly care, though.

 

It's not a human life? Then what in the hell is it? A cat life? A reptilian alien life (lol shred)?

Well, it isn't property. You can't own a life. That's why we don't have slaves any more. An unborn should have modified rights similar to minors who are not capable of making conscious decisions.

Now, let's pretend it is property. THEN abortion would be acceptable (although maybe not accepted by society). If you can convince me that a fetus isn't human life (not going to happen) then I would need to side with you.


As I said before, there are greater issues than abortion and we shouldn't waste tax dollars and prison space with these people. Oh, and answer this for me. If a man kills a pregnant women and the baby dies as well why can that be ruled a double homicide but the fetus was not a living thing and just property? Would it not then be homicide plus destruction of private property?

 

But if the mother does choose to have an abortion, and there was another married couple that could not have children then the mother would be reducing their chance of getting a baby. But it's the mothers choice, she shouldn't be forced into adoption, and she shouldn't be forced into sexual intercourse. Some mothers would rather have a baby to someone she loves and if she is raped and doesn't love the man then she can have an adoption. In the first few months of pregnancy the baby wouldn't feel anything but after awhile it will start to become a new-born.