You're not looking at the process of natural reproduction as a whole. If you did then the comparison is fine. Sex is naturally the start of the reproduction cycle, fertilization is the next step in the reproduction cycle, continuance of the creation of a fetus is the next step in the cycle, and birth is the last step in the cycle. Whether you interfere with the first or second is irrelevant, you're interfering with the cycle and causing the termination of the life of the being that would have come from it. The only link between the fetus and a grown person is DNA, what the sperm and egg have, youre killing the chances of that human being born by slipping on that condom. So to ban abortion you must ban condoms, for they are both ways to cancel the continuation of the cycle.
How hasn't it? It has been explained in detail how these things are not comparable. It is illogical to just look at the end result that both… more are preventing reproduction and then chalk the two up as being similar/ the same thing. In the case of abstinence and using protection, there is only the potential for reproduction. There is no human being made, period. In the case of abortion, there is a human being made, and the abortion actually kills that human being. You could give that human being a name if you really wanted to. There is a massive difference in killing off a developing human being and simply not fulfilling the potential of starting human creation.
Killing unborn babies =/= not having sex (or using protection). These things are not comparable. Especially so in the context of what we have been debating.
Yes, it is nothing to the fetus, it's only something to you.
It's nothing to the fetus only in the sense that it isn't conscious enough at it's stage of development to realize what it has. That doesn't mean that it is truly "nothing". A human life isn't "nothing". This has been said multiple times, but using the fetus's stage of development against it is both unfair and irrational, considering if left to naturally develop, it will eventually reach sentience. So the fact remains that you are robbing it of something. You cannot possibly ignore this and claim that you're taking nothing away without being totally illogical. This is like arguing that you wouldn't be stealing in taking a one dollar bill out of my wallet just because I wouldn't notice it's absence. That's the logic that you are using here. One doesn't have to be conscious of what is being stolen to have been stolen from. All that matters is that you're impacting the unborn child in the worst possible kind of way. There is no justification.
It's not irrelevant and it does justify. The woman is better off (of she doesn't want it, then forcing her to have it would be worse off) and the non-sentient fetus is not hurt, only you are.
It's entirely irrelevant because regardless of what is best for the woman, that doesn't inherently add justification to committing another wrong (killing an unborn child). She shouldn't get to make her situation less shitty at the ultimate expense of someone else (that someone else again being a defenseless, vulnerable, unborn child).
Bad wording because it sheds light on how terrible it is?
Bad wording because it makes it seem terrible in the first place.
It… more isn't "nothing" to the fetus just because it isn't sentient.
Yes, it is nothing to the fetus, it's only something to you.
Arguing that it is better for the woman is both subjective and irrelevant as it adds no justification to doing this.
It's not irrelevant and it does justify. The woman is better off (of she doesn't want it, then forcing her to have it would be worse off) and the non-sentient fetus is not hurt, only you are.
Things don't bother me anymore. For Example, a guy i knew from college, died recently. I considered us friends.. Everyone else is all broken up about it, real tragedy. I'm the exact opposite, so that put a strain on a few relationships because, my other people don't understand why i don't seem to care.
Obviously i care from a society standard, and a human standard, but the feelings just aren't there. PTSD is the reason why people think i'm the monster under their bed, you know what.
It's nothing to the fetus only in the sense that it isn't conscious enough at it's stage of development to realize what it has.
Exactly. You cannot lose what you do not have.
That doesn't mean that it is truly "nothing".
You're right, it's not nothing. It's better to the mother is what it is.
This has been said multiple times, but using the fetus's stage of development against it is both unfair and irrational, considering if left to naturally develop, it will eventually reach sentience.
But it hasn't reached sentience, so the mother is the only one who matters. Had the fetus reached sentience then I would agree with you, but it hasn't and you cannot lose what you do not have (this is the most repetitive argument I've even been in).
So the fact remains that you are robbing it of something.
And you're robbing the mother of something, only difference is that she is conscious and knows it.
This is like arguing that you wouldn't be stealing in taking a one dollar bill out of my wallet just because I wouldn't notice it's absence.
This is like arguing taking a dollar bill you never had.
All that matters is that you're impacting the unborn child in the worst possible kind of way.
I'm impacting a cluster of cells, you're impacting a grown ass person.
t's entirely irrelevant because regardless of what is best for the woman, that doesn't inherently add justification to committing another wrong
No its not and yes it does, the mother is sentient and the fetus is not.
She shouldn't get to make her situation less shitty at the ultimate expense of someone else
She should get to make her situation less shitty at the expense of something non-sentient.
This conversation is literally getting us no where, to the point I've grown tired of rewording my points. All I can say is I'm glad the law sides with me and doesn't force negatives on a sentient person for the wants (or lack thereof) of a non-sentient group of cells. Until next time. Adieu.
Yes, it is nothing to the fetus, it's only something to you.
It's nothing to the fetus only in the sense that it isn't conscious eno… moreugh at it's stage of development to realize what it has. That doesn't mean that it is truly "nothing". A human life isn't "nothing". This has been said multiple times, but using the fetus's stage of development against it is both unfair and irrational, considering if left to naturally develop, it will eventually reach sentience. So the fact remains that you are robbing it of something. You cannot possibly ignore this and claim that you're taking nothing away without being totally illogical. This is like arguing that you wouldn't be stealing in taking a one dollar bill out of my wallet just because I wouldn't notice it's absence. That's the logic that you are using here. One doesn't have to be conscious of what is being stolen to have been stolen from. All that matters is that you're impacting the unborn c… [view original content]
You're not looking at the process of natural reproduction as a whole. If you did then the comparison is fine.
Yes, I am looking at the process as a whole, and have already addressed multiple times how the differences in that overall process make comparing these two parts of the process completely illogical. Just because they are both part of the same overall process of reproduction does not mean that the actions taken at any given part of the process are the same thing. That's where the apples to oranges comparison comes in, because the actions taken at the steps you are trying to compare are not the same thing what so ever, as has already been explained.
Sex is naturally the start of the reproduction cycle, fertilization is the next step in the reproduction cycle, continuance of the creation of a fetus is the next step in the cycle, and birth is the last step in the cycle. Whether you interfere with the first or second is irrelevant, you're interfering with the cycle and causing the termination of the life of the being that would have come from it. The only link between the fetus and a grown person is DNA, what the sperm and egg have, youre killing the chances of that human being born by slipping on that condom.
Again, based on this logic you could make the case that someone is killing unborn babies just because they are not having sex. They aren't coming together with a member of the opposite sex and completing the process of reproduction, so by your logic here they are killing off an unborn child just as someone going through with an abortion is. Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous that is? There is a massive difference in not fulfilling reproductive potential in the sense of starting the actual development of a human being and actually killing off a human being that is already in development.
"When you use protection/ abstain from having sex you are not looking to reproduce, and you are not part of the reproducing process, which is very different from terminating the human development process after you have already started it (as in having an actual human being in development). As I said before, it's like making the point that someone abstaining from sex is robbing children of life just as someone aborting a baby is. Such a point is quite obviously ridiculous, and It makes no sense at all to follow that logic. An unfertilized egg is obviously part of the reproductive process, but it is not the same thing as having a human baby going through development. I'm simply looking at the fact that abortion stops the development of a human being after it has already started. This isn't true in the case of using protection or abstaining from sex where there is nothing more than the potential to start human development, so it is not comparable. Stopping the development of a human being through abortion is not the same thing as staying away from starting the process of creating another human being. There is a difference between the potential for human development and actually having a human in development. There is a difference in killing a developing human baby and simply not conceiving. You can't rationally just look at the fact that either way babies aren't being born and then call these things one in the same in terms of them being justifiable or not. It makes absolutely no sense to do that. You need to actually look at the context. All I have been arguing here is for not denying the fetus the chance to live, as it is already in the process of being born. An unfertilized egg is just that... an unfertilized egg. It isn't a human being in development, so you cannot rationally say that not fertilizing an egg at any given time is the same thing as killing a developing human being. There is no disputing the fact that an abortion is the process of killing an unborn baby. Using your logic, you would then have to argue that abstaining from sex (not completing the reproductive process, as you put it) is equatable to the process of killing unborn babies. Do you now understand how flawed your logic is? Not conceiving ≠ killing a developing unborn human baby. There is no way to logically equally justify these two things."
So to ban abortion you must ban condoms, for they are both ways to cancel the continuation of the cycle.
In entirely different senses that are not even remotely comparable.
You're not looking at the process of natural reproduction as a whole. If you did then the comparison is fine. Sex is naturally the start of … morethe reproduction cycle, fertilization is the next step in the reproduction cycle, continuance of the creation of a fetus is the next step in the cycle, and birth is the last step in the cycle. Whether you interfere with the first or second is irrelevant, you're interfering with the cycle and causing the termination of the life of the being that would have come from it. The only link between the fetus and a grown person is DNA, what the sperm and egg have, youre killing the chances of that human being born by slipping on that condom. So to ban abortion you must ban condoms, for they are both ways to cancel the continuation of the cycle.
The actions are vary similar. You stop the continuation of the cycle by canceling the gentic material.
Ejeculation inside of a woman is where the cycle starts, because that is the point that the genetic material should be present to start fertilization, but it is stopped by the addition of a condom.
Both using a condom and having an abortion stop the cycle.
But I don't feel like putting effort into this anymore because it's obvious that neither of us is going to change our stance and we both keep arguing the same points, as said above. Until next time.
You're not looking at the process of natural reproduction as a whole. If you did then the comparison is fine.
Yes, I am looking at t… morehe process as a whole, and have already addressed multiple times how the differences in that overall process make comparing these two parts of the process completely illogical. Just because they are both part of the same overall process of reproduction does not mean that the actions taken at any given part of the process are the same thing. That's where the apples to oranges comparison comes in, because the actions taken at the steps you are trying to compare are not the same thing what so ever, as has already been explained.
Sex is naturally the start of the reproduction cycle, fertilization is the next step in the reproduction cycle, continuance of the creation of a fetus is the next step in the cycle, and birth is the last step in the cycle. Whether you interfere with the first or second is irrel… [view original content]
Oh man...this is one of those topics that NO ONE will ever agree on. Just like immigration, education, marriage, gays...we go around and aro… moreund, busting skulls and pointing the finger. I'll throw my two cents in because its something that I truly believe in.
I do not agree with abortion. And here is why: My fiancee just gave birth to our 1st child, a little girl, last Thursday; I've never been more in love with a single human being than I am right now. My fiancee and I have been together for seven years; we've never had 'oopsies' and were always careful when having sex. This last time, for the conception of our daughter, we did not use protection. No condom, no pill. A month later, she reveals to me the pregnancy. We did not plan on having our daughter; eventually we'd have children but were planning on my graduation from college and getting a HOUSE not living in an apartment with a newborn.
I could never tell my fiancee to abort that b… [view original content]
You keep saying that over, and over, and over, and over again, without understanding the fact that you are in fact taking something away in the sense that the unborn child would obviously otherwise be born into the world if you were to not actively go out of your way to kill it to make sure that doesn't happen.
You're right, it's not nothing. It's better to the mother is what it is.
?
Alright, so you're finally in agreement that the fetus does in fact have something to lose (it's life)?
But it hasn't reached sentience, so the mother is the only one who matters.
The baby doesn't matter because it isn't yet sentient? The mere fact that it will reach sentience is enough to invalidate your argument. If it were never to reach sentience then you would have an argument, but that is obviously not the case. It's still pretty crazy that you're using stage of human development as justification. It makes no sense to do so. Regardless of it's stage of development and it's current lack of being sentient, that does not change the fact that you are taking away it's life.
But it hasn't reached sentience, so the mother is the only one who matters.
Had the fetus reached sentience then I would agree with you, but it hasn't and you cannot lose what you do not have
Did you not already admit that the fetus does in fact have something to lose? Anyway, I already addressed this in this current post.
(this is the most repetitive argument I've even been in).
Sorry, maybe you should alter your counter points instead of simply repeating the same ones over and over again after they have proven to be illogical/irrational.
And you're robbing the mother of something, only difference is that she is conscious and knows it.
The point is that the baby should not have to pay for her problems. There is absolutely no reasonable argument for the baby having to forfeit it's life because of the mother's shitty situation (regardless of it currently not being sentient)
This is like arguing taking a dollar bill you never had.
You're missing the point. All that I am saying is that one doesn't need to be aware that something has been stolen from them in order for something to have been stolen from them. So your whole argument of the baby not being sentient, not knowing better, so therefore not actually having anything to lose is illogical.
I'm impacting a cluster of cells, you're impacting a grown ass person.
You have absolutely got to be kidding me.
She should get to make her situation less shitty at the expense of something non-sentient.
Something non-sentient that is quite clearly going to become sentient, so regardless of it currently not being sentient, it is still paying as hefty a price as you can pay. Your argument of the baby not being sentient at this stage of development holds no grounds for you doing whatever the hell you want to it. There is seriously no rationality to that.
It's nothing to the fetus only in the sense that it isn't conscious enough at it's stage of development to realize what it has.
Exac… moretly. You cannot lose what you do not have.
That doesn't mean that it is truly "nothing".
You're right, it's not nothing. It's better to the mother is what it is.
This has been said multiple times, but using the fetus's stage of development against it is both unfair and irrational, considering if left to naturally develop, it will eventually reach sentience.
But it hasn't reached sentience, so the mother is the only one who matters. Had the fetus reached sentience then I would agree with you, but it hasn't and you cannot lose what you do not have (this is the most repetitive argument I've even been in).
So the fact remains that you are robbing it of something.
And you're robbing the mother of something, only difference is that she is conscious and knows it.
… [view original content]
You literally ignored every single point that I made... that's why this isn't going anywhere
I understand that using a condom prevents the continuation of the reproductive cycle. I have addressed that multiple times. That doesn't make it akin to killing a baby. I explained why above, if you're interested in addressing those points (though I really don't think there is anything to argue against..)
* The actions are vary similar. You stop the continuation of the cycle by canceling the gentic material.
* Ejeculation inside of a woman … moreis where the cycle starts, because that is the point that the genetic material should be present to start fertilization, but it is stopped by the addition of a condom.
Both using a condom and having an abortion stop the cycle.
But I don't feel like putting effort into this anymore because it's obvious that neither of us is going to change our stance and we both keep arguing the same points, as said above. Until next time.
You literally ignored every single point that I made... that's why this isn't going anywhere
I understand that using a condom prevents t… morehe continuation of the reproductive cycle. I have addressed that multiple times. That doesn't make it akin to killing a baby. I explained why above, if you're interested in addressing those points (though I really don't think there is anything to argue against..)
Exactly. You cannot lose what you do not have.
You keep saying that over, and over, and over, and over again, without understanding … morethe fact that you are in fact taking something away in the sense that the unborn child would obviously otherwise be born into the world if you were to not actively go out of your way to kill it to make sure that doesn't happen.
You're right, it's not nothing. It's better to the mother is what it is.
?
Alright, so you're finally in agreement that the fetus does in fact have something to lose (it's life)?
But it hasn't reached sentience, so the mother is the only one who matters.
The baby doesn't matter because it isn't yet sentient? The mere fact that it will reach sentience is enough to invalidate your argument. If it were never to reach sentience then you would have an argument, but that is obviously not the case. It's still pretty crazy that you're using stage of human dev… [view original content]
It's not woman's body anymore it's body of innocent baby living inside her.she should've thought about her body before she's done some things. But it is a murder when you know, it's a fact baby's gonna live, those cells will be a human being and deserve equal chance to live just as the mother of that child had. If it's just a bunch of cells then why kill it? No it's called a life. I can somehow understand women who've been raped.
I understand if women want to have an abortion if they don't feel as though they are ready to be parents, it is their body so they should be… more able to do what they want.
And in my opinion, abortion isn't murder. The baby isn't even fully formed, so how can it be murder if they aren't even completely alive yet?
No offense taken! I'll try my hardest to keep it. I haven't taken a pledge at church, it's more of a pledge to myself. I just do it because I think your virginity should only be given to someone you truly, truly love - usually someone you've been with for an extreme amount of time, or someone you're married to. But yeah, there are quite a few people who do this. People in my family do this a lot, but it usually happens because (they claim) they were drunk or pressured into losing their virginity. Or they simply did it to piss their parents off. One, I know, resulted in a pregnancy in my 17 year old cousin, who then had a miscarriage.
With all due respect, and I'm not implying this about you, but I've known people who were religious, and claimed they wouldn't have sex befo… morere marriage.
Some even signed what's called a "purity pledge" with their church.
Very few of them actually lived up to their word.
If you truly believe in "no sex before marriage" and are determined to live by it, though others might not understand it, they'll have to respect you for it.
It's a shame about your cousin.
I cannot imagine what it's like to lose a child.
My condolences!
But there is something you can do from this experience that happened to your cousin.
You can learn from it.
You may have heard, or you might even believe, that experience is the best teacher.
Granted, experience can be a valuable teacher, but it's also the most expensive.
And depending on what kind of decisions you make, you can either experience potentially years of joy, or years of grief.
The point is, you don't need to experience bad things, to appreciate the good.
Nor do you have to experience bad things, to know to stay away from them, or that they can hurt you.
The best thing, along from learning from your own experiences, is to learn from the experiences of others.
And if you can do this, you'll save yourself much heartache.
No offense taken! I'll try my hardest to keep it. I haven't taken a pledge at church, it's more of a pledge to myself. I just do it because … moreI think your virginity should only be given to someone you truly, truly love - usually someone you've been with for an extreme amount of time, or someone you're married to. But yeah, there are quite a few people who do this. People in my family do this a lot, but it usually happens because (they claim) they were drunk or pressured into losing their virginity. Or they simply did it to piss their parents off. One, I know, resulted in a pregnancy in my 17 year old cousin, who then had a miscarriage.
Life is awful, people are awful, sometimes it's better for a child to not be born at all than to be brought into this world to recieve nothing but pain and misery, not to mentiion that if the mother is a drug user, an alcoholic or a smoker and she doesn't care about the baby the creature could be doomed to a life of horrible illness, sure killing it may be cruel but in certain situations it might be preferrable, in any case not wanting the baby doesn't necessarily mean the kid will go into adoption, most will stay with their families and often be abused as they grow up due to the resentment the parent holds against them, and even if they go into adoption and get adopted doesn't mean they'll have good parents, sure that doesn't the kid doesn't deserve a chance but if I'm honest I'm not really against it, I've seen plenty of kids suffer and it's always the most awful and heartbreaking thing, hell I once saw little girls selling themselves on the street and it was such an awful image that I still get nightmares about and I randomly get depressed whenever I remember, life is awful and most people aren't strong enough to handle that kind of life without destroying themselves or other people around them.
Thanks for the advice! I really appreciate it. My cousin had an ectopic miscarriage, meaning the baby developed outside her womb (how that's possible, I don't know, but it is), so that's even worse. Yeah... I'm abstaining. My dad actually has several sisters who became teen mothers, and I know he doesn't want that for me, so... Do it for the dad. Do it for the dad. Abstain for the dad and the boyfriend who is also religious and abstaining...
It's a shame about your cousin.
I cannot imagine what it's like to lose a child.
My condolences!
But there is something you can do from… more this experience that happened to your cousin.
You can learn from it.
You may have heard, or you might even believe, that experience is the best teacher.
Granted, experience can be a valuable teacher, but it's also the most expensive.
And depending on what kind of decisions you make, you can either experience potentially years of joy, or years of grief.
The point is, you don't need to experience bad things, to appreciate the good.
Nor do you have to experience bad things, to know to stay away from them, or that they can hurt you.
The best thing, along from learning from your own experiences, is to learn from the experiences of others.
And if you can do this, you'll save yourself much heartache.
That, sadly, is true.
But my point was, that it is still wrong.
Just because some jerk leaves his kid behind, doesn't mean another has too.
There is no law that says a person has to go with the flow.
That's what fish do, and the last time I checked, fish are mindless animals.
Humans on the other hand, are much higher than that, as we have the ability to think and to reason on deep subjects, the deepest probably being; and one that no one cane seem to agree on is the question: "Why are we here?"
You more or less just described something that occurs in all human societies across the world, and most of those things you have mentioned have been going on since humans have existed.
Life is awful, people are awful, sometimes it's better for a child to not be born at all than to be brought into this world to recieve nothi… moreng but pain and misery, not to mentiion that if the mother is a drug user, an alcoholic or a smoker and she doesn't care about the baby the creature could be doomed to a life of horrible illness, sure killing it may be cruel but in certain situations it might be preferrable, in any case not wanting the baby doesn't necessarily mean the kid will go into adoption, most will stay with their families and often be abused as they grow up due to the resentment the parent holds against them, and even if they go into adoption and get adopted doesn't mean they'll have good parents, sure that doesn't the kid doesn't deserve a chance but if I'm honest I'm not really against it, I've seen plenty of kids suffer and it's always the most awful and heartbreaking thing, hell I once saw little girls selling themselves on th… [view original content]
IMO pro choice it's ultimately female's decision...especially if it was a sexual assault ending in pregnancy....how could you possible dare tell her she needs to keep that unwanted baby? if it was your daughter, sister, niece, cousin, wife or g/f...can you really tell her to keep it?
"It's ultimately the female's choice?"
What about the father, shouldn't he have a say in it, after all without him, there wouldn't be a baby in question?
Are you saying the father has no rights at all?
And in this case, I'm not referring to sexual assault.
And since you mentioned it, if it was my wife/girlfriend, yes I would want her to keep it.
After all, the child would be mine as well.
And I would be furious if she aborted it, as after like I said, it would be my kid too.
IMO pro choice it's ultimately female's decision...especially if it was a sexual assault ending in pregnancy....how could you possible dare … moretell her she needs to keep that unwanted baby? if it was your daughter, sister, niece, cousin, wife or g/f...can you really tell her to keep it?
You say both you and your boyfriend are religeous, and are trying to wait until marriage, well that's all well and good.
But if proper precautions are not taken, you could still unintentionally break your vow.
One of the best things you can do, is to make sure the two of you, you and your boyfriend, are never alone together.
Nor that you two become overly affectionate.
If the two of you are alone, and you two start becoming affectionate, you might think you'll be able to control how far it goes.
But let me tell you, from personal experience, once that rollercoaster starts, it's almost impossible to put the breaks on.
To assume you are in complete control, over any situation, is a surefire way to invite disaster.
I know what I'm saying might sound like overkill to you.
But if you really want to keep your vow, you're gonna have to be willing to deny yourself things, even if they might seem innocent in themselves.
And if your boyfriend is truly determined to uphold his vow, he will respect that, and he'll respect you for taking such precautions.
Thanks for the advice! I really appreciate it. My cousin had an ectopic miscarriage, meaning the baby developed outside her womb (how that's… more possible, I don't know, but it is), so that's even worse. Yeah... I'm abstaining. My dad actually has several sisters who became teen mothers, and I know he doesn't want that for me, so... Do it for the dad. Do it for the dad. Abstain for the dad and the boyfriend who is also religious and abstaining...
What about the father, shouldn't he have a say in it, after all without him, there wouldn't be a baby in question? Are you saying the father has no rights at all?
yes, a father do have the right to give his opinion/advice regarding this matter but in the end she will be in control of the situation.
And since you mentioned it, if it was my wife/girlfriend, yes I would want her to keep it. After all, the child would be mine as well. And I would be furious if she aborted it, as after like I said, it would be my kid too.
im sorry i strongly disagree with this, after being brutality assaulted you can tell wife/gf straight in the face and say "let's keep the baby" i cant even fathom that thought...all you can do in this matter is support her decision.
if your wife/gf wanted you to get a vasectomy procedure....would you?
"It's ultimately the female's choice?"
What about the father, shouldn't he have a say in it, after all without him, there wouldn't be a bab… morey in question?
Are you saying the father has no rights at all?
And in this case, I'm not referring to sexual assault.
And since you mentioned it, if it was my wife/girlfriend, yes I would want her to keep it.
After all, the child would be mine as well.
And I would be furious if she aborted it, as after like I said, it would be my kid too.
What about the father, shouldn't he have a say in it, after all without him, there wouldn't be a baby in question? Are you saying the father… more has no rights at all?
yes, a father do have the right to give his opinion/advice regarding this matter but in the end she will be in control of the situation.
And since you mentioned it, if it was my wife/girlfriend, yes I would want her to keep it. After all, the child would be mine as well. And I would be furious if she aborted it, as after like I said, it would be my kid too.
im sorry i strongly disagree with this, after being brutality assaulted you can tell wife/gf straight in the face and say "let's keep the baby" i cant even fathom that thought...all you can do in this matter is support her decision.
if your wife/gf wanted you to get a vasectomy procedure....would you?
this topic ha. me its the woman's choice. if she ultimately wants to have an abortion, she should have one. its her body and i dont really feel they are completely formed yet. but i do feel different if they have more than two. thats... thats too much. wear a condom, birth control.
IMO pro choice it's ultimately female's decision...especially if it was a sexual assault ending in pregnancy....how could you possible dare … moretell her she needs to keep that unwanted baby? if it was your daughter, sister, niece, cousin, wife or g/f...can you really tell her to keep it?
I don't know really. I mean in one way, if a woman was raped and she couldn't bare having a child and could possibly even die of having a child she kind of has the right to do it, in another if a woman chose to have sex and she caused her own pregnancy then it sounds like the opposite of a good thing to do but if you think about it when people have sex, only one sperm out of the millions reaches it's destination meaning that millions of undeveloped babies are killed regardless before an abortion can even take place. Either way, it's the mother's decision, honestly the main reason it's bad is that in society today, killing living things is morally wrong. Although I agree with the saying "killing is wrong" I still believe people have the right to live their lives however they choose too, if someone is having an abortion, I feel it should be a matter that they themselves should be concerned about, it's really no one else's business.
Yes she is. The only thing that labels that thing as human is DNA, and my mole has that. The only "life" in question is the life of the moth… moreer, and how it will be affected by having or not having the abortion, it then falls into her hands whether she feels it's right or wrong to give birth. No one can, or should, decide that for her.
She shouldn't if she willingly had sex knowing she could get pregnant. It's her body? Okay, so why can't people put whatever kind of drugs into their body without getting arrested? Is that not their choice to make with their body?
I think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion regardless of the situation. It's her body; she shouldn't be forced to give birth to a… more kid if she doesn't want to. And it's kinda weird to hear guys talk about their stance on the matter, especially if it's the pro-life stance, whenever it's not their body being thrown into a political debate.
No, the decision does not ultimately come down to her. It's not fair at all for a woman to just decide to kill a man's child simply because she doesn't want it. I'm talking about in cases of consensual sex, not rape. If she doesn't then the father should be able to have the choice to raise the baby himself if that bitch doesn't want it.
What about the father, shouldn't he have a say in it, after all without him, there wouldn't be a baby in question? Are you saying the father… more has no rights at all?
yes, a father do have the right to give his opinion/advice regarding this matter but in the end she will be in control of the situation.
And since you mentioned it, if it was my wife/girlfriend, yes I would want her to keep it. After all, the child would be mine as well. And I would be furious if she aborted it, as after like I said, it would be my kid too.
im sorry i strongly disagree with this, after being brutality assaulted you can tell wife/gf straight in the face and say "let's keep the baby" i cant even fathom that thought...all you can do in this matter is support her decision.
if your wife/gf wanted you to get a vasectomy procedure....would you?
It does, but he doesn't have to carry it or give birth to it. But this topic has been covered more than my thanksgiving turkey in gravy, and I have a new game to go dive into. Unless you have some new epiphany inducing tidbit of information to share I'm genna have to get back to my game.
It doesn't matter if he doesn't. Billions of women have, they aren't going through anything that's impossible to endure. Women's bodies are made to do things like that.
It does, but he doesn't have to carry it or give birth to it. But this topic has been covered more than my thanksgiving turkey in gravy, and… more I have a new game to go dive into. Unless you have some new epiphany inducing tidbit of information to share I'm genna have to get back to my game.
It doesn't matter if he doesn't. Billions of women have, they aren't going through anything that's impossible to endure. Women's bodies are made to do things like that.
Comments
You're not looking at the process of natural reproduction as a whole. If you did then the comparison is fine. Sex is naturally the start of the reproduction cycle, fertilization is the next step in the reproduction cycle, continuance of the creation of a fetus is the next step in the cycle, and birth is the last step in the cycle. Whether you interfere with the first or second is irrelevant, you're interfering with the cycle and causing the termination of the life of the being that would have come from it. The only link between the fetus and a grown person is DNA, what the sperm and egg have, youre killing the chances of that human being born by slipping on that condom. So to ban abortion you must ban condoms, for they are both ways to cancel the continuation of the cycle.
It's nothing to the fetus only in the sense that it isn't conscious enough at it's stage of development to realize what it has. That doesn't mean that it is truly "nothing". A human life isn't "nothing". This has been said multiple times, but using the fetus's stage of development against it is both unfair and irrational, considering if left to naturally develop, it will eventually reach sentience. So the fact remains that you are robbing it of something. You cannot possibly ignore this and claim that you're taking nothing away without being totally illogical. This is like arguing that you wouldn't be stealing in taking a one dollar bill out of my wallet just because I wouldn't notice it's absence. That's the logic that you are using here. One doesn't have to be conscious of what is being stolen to have been stolen from. All that matters is that you're impacting the unborn child in the worst possible kind of way. There is no justification.
It's entirely irrelevant because regardless of what is best for the woman, that doesn't inherently add justification to committing another wrong (killing an unborn child). She shouldn't get to make her situation less shitty at the ultimate expense of someone else (that someone else again being a defenseless, vulnerable, unborn child).
I fully support abortion,
You can rant and wave all you want . But at the end of the day .It's her body ,her choice not yours.
Things don't bother me anymore. For Example, a guy i knew from college, died recently. I considered us friends.. Everyone else is all broken up about it, real tragedy. I'm the exact opposite, so that put a strain on a few relationships because, my other people don't understand why i don't seem to care.
Obviously i care from a society standard, and a human standard, but the feelings just aren't there. PTSD is the reason why people think i'm the monster under their bed, you know what.
They are right.
Exactly. You cannot lose what you do not have.
You're right, it's not nothing. It's better to the mother is what it is.
But it hasn't reached sentience, so the mother is the only one who matters. Had the fetus reached sentience then I would agree with you, but it hasn't and you cannot lose what you do not have (this is the most repetitive argument I've even been in).
And you're robbing the mother of something, only difference is that she is conscious and knows it.
This is like arguing taking a dollar bill you never had.
I'm impacting a cluster of cells, you're impacting a grown ass person.
No its not and yes it does, the mother is sentient and the fetus is not.
She should get to make her situation less shitty at the expense of something non-sentient.
This conversation is literally getting us no where, to the point I've grown tired of rewording my points. All I can say is I'm glad the law sides with me and doesn't force negatives on a sentient person for the wants (or lack thereof) of a non-sentient group of cells. Until next time. Adieu.
Yes, I am looking at the process as a whole, and have already addressed multiple times how the differences in that overall process make comparing these two parts of the process completely illogical. Just because they are both part of the same overall process of reproduction does not mean that the actions taken at any given part of the process are the same thing. That's where the apples to oranges comparison comes in, because the actions taken at the steps you are trying to compare are not the same thing what so ever, as has already been explained.
Again, based on this logic you could make the case that someone is killing unborn babies just because they are not having sex. They aren't coming together with a member of the opposite sex and completing the process of reproduction, so by your logic here they are killing off an unborn child just as someone going through with an abortion is. Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous that is? There is a massive difference in not fulfilling reproductive potential in the sense of starting the actual development of a human being and actually killing off a human being that is already in development.
"When you use protection/ abstain from having sex you are not looking to reproduce, and you are not part of the reproducing process, which is very different from terminating the human development process after you have already started it (as in having an actual human being in development). As I said before, it's like making the point that someone abstaining from sex is robbing children of life just as someone aborting a baby is. Such a point is quite obviously ridiculous, and It makes no sense at all to follow that logic. An unfertilized egg is obviously part of the reproductive process, but it is not the same thing as having a human baby going through development. I'm simply looking at the fact that abortion stops the development of a human being after it has already started. This isn't true in the case of using protection or abstaining from sex where there is nothing more than the potential to start human development, so it is not comparable. Stopping the development of a human being through abortion is not the same thing as staying away from starting the process of creating another human being. There is a difference between the potential for human development and actually having a human in development. There is a difference in killing a developing human baby and simply not conceiving. You can't rationally just look at the fact that either way babies aren't being born and then call these things one in the same in terms of them being justifiable or not. It makes absolutely no sense to do that. You need to actually look at the context. All I have been arguing here is for not denying the fetus the chance to live, as it is already in the process of being born. An unfertilized egg is just that... an unfertilized egg. It isn't a human being in development, so you cannot rationally say that not fertilizing an egg at any given time is the same thing as killing a developing human being. There is no disputing the fact that an abortion is the process of killing an unborn baby. Using your logic, you would then have to argue that abstaining from sex (not completing the reproductive process, as you put it) is equatable to the process of killing unborn babies. Do you now understand how flawed your logic is? Not conceiving ≠ killing a developing unborn human baby. There is no way to logically equally justify these two things."
In entirely different senses that are not even remotely comparable.
The actions are vary similar. You stop the continuation of the cycle by canceling the gentic material.
Ejeculation inside of a woman is where the cycle starts, because that is the point that the genetic material should be present to start fertilization, but it is stopped by the addition of a condom.
Both using a condom and having an abortion stop the cycle.
But I don't feel like putting effort into this anymore because it's obvious that neither of us is going to change our stance and we both keep arguing the same points, as said above. Until next time.
You keep saying that over, and over, and over, and over again, without understanding the fact that you are in fact taking something away in the sense that the unborn child would obviously otherwise be born into the world if you were to not actively go out of your way to kill it to make sure that doesn't happen.
?
Alright, so you're finally in agreement that the fetus does in fact have something to lose (it's life)?
The baby doesn't matter because it isn't yet sentient? The mere fact that it will reach sentience is enough to invalidate your argument. If it were never to reach sentience then you would have an argument, but that is obviously not the case. It's still pretty crazy that you're using stage of human development as justification. It makes no sense to do so. Regardless of it's stage of development and it's current lack of being sentient, that does not change the fact that you are taking away it's life.
Had the fetus reached sentience then I would agree with you, but it hasn't and you cannot lose what you do not have
Did you not already admit that the fetus does in fact have something to lose? Anyway, I already addressed this in this current post.
Sorry, maybe you should alter your counter points instead of simply repeating the same ones over and over again after they have proven to be illogical/irrational.
The point is that the baby should not have to pay for her problems. There is absolutely no reasonable argument for the baby having to forfeit it's life because of the mother's shitty situation (regardless of it currently not being sentient)
You're missing the point. All that I am saying is that one doesn't need to be aware that something has been stolen from them in order for something to have been stolen from them. So your whole argument of the baby not being sentient, not knowing better, so therefore not actually having anything to lose is illogical.
You have absolutely got to be kidding me.
Something non-sentient that is quite clearly going to become sentient, so regardless of it currently not being sentient, it is still paying as hefty a price as you can pay. Your argument of the baby not being sentient at this stage of development holds no grounds for you doing whatever the hell you want to it. There is seriously no rationality to that.
You literally ignored every single point that I made... that's why this isn't going anywhere
I understand that using a condom prevents the continuation of the reproductive cycle. I have addressed that multiple times. That doesn't make it akin to killing a baby. I explained why above, if you're interested in addressing those points (though I really don't think there is anything to argue against..)
Not true, but if you insist then it must be. Until next time.
Adieu.
It's not woman's body anymore it's body of innocent baby living inside her.she should've thought about her body before she's done some things. But it is a murder when you know, it's a fact baby's gonna live, those cells will be a human being and deserve equal chance to live just as the mother of that child had. If it's just a bunch of cells then why kill it? No it's called a life. I can somehow understand women who've been raped.
Nope, not even touching this one.
Asking 'the abortion question' is like pulling the pin on a live hand grenade.
No offense taken! I'll try my hardest to keep it. I haven't taken a pledge at church, it's more of a pledge to myself. I just do it because I think your virginity should only be given to someone you truly, truly love - usually someone you've been with for an extreme amount of time, or someone you're married to.
But yeah, there are quite a few people who do this. People in my family do this a lot, but it usually happens because (they claim) they were drunk or pressured into losing their virginity. Or they simply did it to piss their parents off. One, I know, resulted in a pregnancy in my 17 year old cousin, who then had a miscarriage.
It's a shame about your cousin.
I cannot imagine what it's like to lose a child.
My condolences!
But there is something you can do from this experience that happened to your cousin.
You can learn from it.
You may have heard, or you might even believe, that experience is the best teacher.
Granted, experience can be a valuable teacher, but it's also the most expensive.
And depending on what kind of decisions you make, you can either experience potentially years of joy, or years of grief.
The point is, you don't need to experience bad things, to appreciate the good.
Nor do you have to experience bad things, to know to stay away from them, or that they can hurt you.
The best thing, along from learning from your own experiences, is to learn from the experiences of others.
And if you can do this, you'll save yourself much heartache.
Life is awful, people are awful, sometimes it's better for a child to not be born at all than to be brought into this world to recieve nothing but pain and misery, not to mentiion that if the mother is a drug user, an alcoholic or a smoker and she doesn't care about the baby the creature could be doomed to a life of horrible illness, sure killing it may be cruel but in certain situations it might be preferrable, in any case not wanting the baby doesn't necessarily mean the kid will go into adoption, most will stay with their families and often be abused as they grow up due to the resentment the parent holds against them, and even if they go into adoption and get adopted doesn't mean they'll have good parents, sure that doesn't the kid doesn't deserve a chance but if I'm honest I'm not really against it, I've seen plenty of kids suffer and it's always the most awful and heartbreaking thing, hell I once saw little girls selling themselves on the street and it was such an awful image that I still get nightmares about and I randomly get depressed whenever I remember, life is awful and most people aren't strong enough to handle that kind of life without destroying themselves or other people around them.
Thanks for the advice! I really appreciate it. My cousin had an ectopic miscarriage, meaning the baby developed outside her womb (how that's possible, I don't know, but it is), so that's even worse. Yeah... I'm abstaining. My dad actually has several sisters who became teen mothers, and I know he doesn't want that for me, so... Do it for the dad. Do it for the dad. Abstain for the dad and the boyfriend who is also religious and abstaining...
That, sadly, is true.
But my point was, that it is still wrong.
Just because some jerk leaves his kid behind, doesn't mean another has too.
There is no law that says a person has to go with the flow.
That's what fish do, and the last time I checked, fish are mindless animals.
Humans on the other hand, are much higher than that, as we have the ability to think and to reason on deep subjects, the deepest probably being; and one that no one cane seem to agree on is the question: "Why are we here?"
I agree completely
IMO pro choice it's ultimately female's decision...especially if it was a sexual assault ending in pregnancy....how could you possible dare tell her she needs to keep that unwanted baby? if it was your daughter, sister, niece, cousin, wife or g/f...can you really tell her to keep it?
"It's ultimately the female's choice?"
What about the father, shouldn't he have a say in it, after all without him, there wouldn't be a baby in question?
Are you saying the father has no rights at all?
And in this case, I'm not referring to sexual assault.
And since you mentioned it, if it was my wife/girlfriend, yes I would want her to keep it.
After all, the child would be mine as well.
And I would be furious if she aborted it, as after like I said, it would be my kid too.
You're welcome.
You say both you and your boyfriend are religeous, and are trying to wait until marriage, well that's all well and good.
But if proper precautions are not taken, you could still unintentionally break your vow.
One of the best things you can do, is to make sure the two of you, you and your boyfriend, are never alone together.
Nor that you two become overly affectionate.
If the two of you are alone, and you two start becoming affectionate, you might think you'll be able to control how far it goes.
But let me tell you, from personal experience, once that rollercoaster starts, it's almost impossible to put the breaks on.
To assume you are in complete control, over any situation, is a surefire way to invite disaster.
I know what I'm saying might sound like overkill to you.
But if you really want to keep your vow, you're gonna have to be willing to deny yourself things, even if they might seem innocent in themselves.
And if your boyfriend is truly determined to uphold his vow, he will respect that, and he'll respect you for taking such precautions.
yes, a father do have the right to give his opinion/advice regarding this matter but in the end she will be in control of the situation.
im sorry i strongly disagree with this, after being brutality assaulted you can tell wife/gf straight in the face and say "let's keep the baby" i cant even fathom that thought...all you can do in this matter is support her decision.
if your wife/gf wanted you to get a vasectomy procedure....would you?
No that's not what I meant.
I meant if I got my girlfriend/wife pregnant, I'd be furious if she aborted the child, as it would be my child also.
this topic ha. me its the woman's choice. if she ultimately wants to have an abortion, she should have one. its her body and i dont really feel they are completely formed yet. but i do feel different if they have more than two. thats... thats too much. wear a condom, birth control.
yep.
I don't know really. I mean in one way, if a woman was raped and she couldn't bare having a child and could possibly even die of having a child she kind of has the right to do it, in another if a woman chose to have sex and she caused her own pregnancy then it sounds like the opposite of a good thing to do but if you think about it when people have sex, only one sperm out of the millions reaches it's destination meaning that millions of undeveloped babies are killed regardless before an abortion can even take place. Either way, it's the mother's decision, honestly the main reason it's bad is that in society today, killing living things is morally wrong. Although I agree with the saying "killing is wrong" I still believe people have the right to live their lives however they choose too, if someone is having an abortion, I feel it should be a matter that they themselves should be concerned about, it's really no one else's business.
@Kenny/Lee my apologies, i thought you meant if your sufficient other was raped and you wanted her to keep it...my bad.
So it doesn't affect the father?
She shouldn't if she willingly had sex knowing she could get pregnant. It's her body? Okay, so why can't people put whatever kind of drugs into their body without getting arrested? Is that not their choice to make with their body?
So it's not okay for someone to accidentally kill a fetus but it is to intentionally kill it?
Sound logic, good job.
No, the decision does not ultimately come down to her. It's not fair at all for a woman to just decide to kill a man's child simply because she doesn't want it. I'm talking about in cases of consensual sex, not rape. If she doesn't then the father should be able to have the choice to raise the baby himself if that bitch doesn't want it.
It does, but he doesn't have to carry it or give birth to it. But this topic has been covered more than my thanksgiving turkey in gravy, and I have a new game to go dive into. Unless you have some new epiphany inducing tidbit of information to share I'm genna have to get back to my game.
So? It's still an accident vs intentionally.
It doesn't matter if he doesn't. Billions of women have, they aren't going through anything that's impossible to endure. Women's bodies are made to do things like that.
And on that note, good bye.
The above statement is explainitory, but if you insist. Good bye.