How is that fair to the child though..? Killing the unborn born baby just because of the undesirable circumstances that led to the pregnancy… more is still not acceptable in my opinion. Obviously it would be difficult for the mother to go through with the pregnancy, but this does not justify robbing someone of their chance to live.
How is that fair to the child though..? Killing the unborn born baby just because of the undesirable circumstances that led to the pregnancy… more is still not acceptable in my opinion. Obviously it would be difficult for the mother to go through with the pregnancy, but this does not justify robbing someone of their chance to live.
As men, when we become fathers, we to have a huge responsibility toward our children.
And that is to provide them with guidance, protection, love, and discipline.
And honestly, I believe that if a man is going to become a father, he has a legal and moral right to have a say in the child's life, even if him and the mom are not married.
It's not just up to the mom to decide how the child is raised, or how he is disciplined.
I also have to agree, that whole "my body my choice" is completely selfish.
By doing that the woman is not considering the unborn child, nor is she considering the feelings of it's father.
The father might be totally against it, as that child is a part of him.
I am pro life. I believe the ability to bring life into the world is one of the most beautiful things a woman can do. It's our duty when we … morebecome mothers to protect, nurture and love our children. Especially in the womb, because they don't have a voice yet, they can't fend for themselves, they depend on us completely. To look at your own child as a mistake to get rid of like trash just because the timing is off or they weren't conceived in the way you wanted..I can't even fathom it. That's your own flesh and blood, your own little girl/boy. The way I see it, the moment you have sex, you're accepting all the possible repercussions that come with it. If you're mature enough to have sex, than you're mature enough to have a baby. That's just how it is. The "my body my choice" argument is honestly so damn selfish, it's not just about your body anymore, there's another life and body to consider now. Yes, the baby wasn't planned, but is 9 months, n… [view original content]
I am pro life. I believe the ability to bring life into the world is one of the most beautiful things a woman can do. It's our duty when we … morebecome mothers to protect, nurture and love our children. Especially in the womb, because they don't have a voice yet, they can't fend for themselves, they depend on us completely. To look at your own child as a mistake to get rid of like trash just because the timing is off or they weren't conceived in the way you wanted..I can't even fathom it. That's your own flesh and blood, your own little girl/boy. The way I see it, the moment you have sex, you're accepting all the possible repercussions that come with it. If you're mature enough to have sex, than you're mature enough to have a baby. That's just how it is. The "my body my choice" argument is honestly so damn selfish, it's not just about your body anymore, there's another life and body to consider now. Yes, the baby wasn't planned, but is 9 months, n… [view original content]
Just on a side note, a fetus is human by virtue of their genome.
After 8 weeks of pregnancy the baby has a beating heart, a working brain and more necessary organs, most abortions of course are done after the 8th week.
And by the 23th/24th week, the baby can already survive an abortion, and a lot did, which is completely horrible and sick, but there are people in this world today that believe they don't have the right to live because some selfish mother was too much of a pussy to give birth to her child.
Just wanted to state why a fetus is, in fact, a human being, to clear it up. Upon fertilization, it's no longer a "potential human", but a developing human being.
Affected is one of those words. You can affect the air, or a rock, they are not living. Neither is the clump of cells. The mother is the onl… morey one who is being affected on a level beyond that of moving the placement and arrangement of a group of atoms. It is not a life in question, the only life in question is that of the mother
This isn't a parallel comparison, as the things that you listed are what they are. They aren't going to change, and they are not sentient. We're talking about the potential to live here, regardless of how you personally want to define life. The fact doesn't change that if you were to do nothing about the pregnancy, a human being would be born. So it seems rather illogical to just wave the argument away and insist that no one is being affected other than the mother when that isn't truly the case. You're still depriving a human being of the chance to live, so clearly you are having an affect on it.
The fetu… [view original content]
I'm 100% fine with the woman wanting to get an abortion and getting it.
Let's be honest here, it's not Pro-Life and Pro-Choice...It's Pro… more-Birth and Pro-Choice. If you accidently get preggers from rape or make a mistake and you cant raise a child then it's better to abort an unborn fetus which doesn't have a devolved brain and doesn't know what's going on then have a baby be born and be left to have a shit life or even be left to die by the mother. When you abort you aren't murdering a child.
I agree completely with your take on a father's role, and how important their involvement in the raising of a child is. Too many people underestimate the value of a father being present in the life of their child. It saddens me.
As men, when we become fathers, we to have a huge responsibility toward our children.
And that is to provide them with guidance, protection… more, love, and discipline.
And honestly, I believe that if a man is going to become a father, he has a legal and moral right to have a say in the child's life, even if him and the mom are not married.
It's not just up to the mom to decide how the child is raised, or how he is disciplined.
I also have to agree, that whole "my body my choice" is completely selfish.
By doing that the woman is not considering the unborn child, nor is she considering the feelings of it's father.
The father might be totally against it, as that child is a part of him.
Thanks for clearing that up. I had only chosen not to elaborate on this in my previous post as those supporting "pro-choice" tend to dance around it/ downplay the argument. Didn't want anyone to get side tracked on that portion of the argument when either way you look at it we're talking about extinguishing/preventing human life. Downplaying the existence of the fetus doesn't remotely save their side of the argument, so it's rather pointless of them to waste their time doing so.
Nice post Belan
Same to you. Thanks again for adding a little more detail/substance to my post
Just on a side note, a fetus is human by virtue of their genome.
After 8 weeks of pregnancy the baby has a beating heart, a working brain… more and more necessary organs, most abortions of course are done after the 8th week.
And by the 23th/24th week, the baby can already survive an abortion, and a lot did, which is completely horrible and sick, but there are people in this world today that believe they don't have the right to live because some selfish mother was too much of a pussy to give birth to her child.
Just wanted to state why a fetus is, in fact, a human being, to clear it up. Upon fertilization, it's no longer a "potential human", but a developing human being.
Nice post Belan
Thank you.
My Dad was very caring toward me growing up.
And that is truly to his credit, as his dad took off on him and my grandma, when my dad was 5.
And his step-dad wasn't all that crazy about him.
Yet my Dad, despite his not having an example of what it means to be a father, did the very best he could with me.
Yes my dad made mistakes as a parent, but he always did his best.
So from him, I learned the importance of having a father in one's life.
It is sad that there are so many dead-beat dad's out there.
And what gets me, is that they think of themselves as men.
REAL MEN take care of their families, and do what they know is required of them.
REAL MEN face their responsibilities, they don't run from them.
So these dead-beat dad's, are not really men.
Yes they're are men in physical size, and in age.
But they still lack the qualities necessary to be truly called men.
The true measure of a man, is not measured by his height, nor necessarily by his age, but by what he is on the inside.
Here's my viewpoint: "Sex is a wonderful experience, but it's NOT a game, as it can either result in children, or sadly in disease.
So, and this applies to both men and women, if you are having sex, be responsible by using condoms.
And if you don't wanna use protection, than you need to be willing to accept whatever consequences may follow.
And if you're not willing to do either one of the two things mentioned here, than you have NO business having sex.
PERIOD!"
I agree completely with your take on a father's role, and how important their involvement in the raising of a child is. Too many people underestimate the value of a father being present in the life of their child. It saddens me.
You're welcome. I'm glad your father was and is such a positive influence in your life. I unfortunately cannot say the same for my father, he was not right in the head. Thankfully my mother made sure to expose me to many good men when I was little to make up for his downfalls, such as the pastor at our church, and local policemen and firemen. If anything, because of my time with my father I know everything a real man isn't and shouldn't be. As you said, real men will protect and take care of their families no matter what, they aren't cowards, they face their responsibilities, they love their children unconditionally and are present in their lives trying to be the best role model they can be.
So, and this applies to both men and women, if you are having sex, be responsible by using condoms. And if you don't wanna use protection, than you need to be willing to accept whatever consequences may follow. And if you're not willing to do either one of the two things mentioned here, than you have NO business having sex. PERIOD!"
Thank you.
My Dad was very caring toward me growing up.
And that is truly to his credit, as his dad took off on him and my grandma, when m… morey dad was 5.
And his step-dad wasn't all that crazy about him.
Yet my Dad, despite his not having an example of what it means to be a father, did the very best he could with me.
Yes my dad made mistakes as a parent, but he always did his best.
So from him, I learned the importance of having a father in one's life.
It is sad that there are so many dead-beat dad's out there.
And what gets me, is that they think of themselves as men.
REAL MEN take care of their families, and do what they know is required of them.
REAL MEN face their responsibilities, they don't run from them.
So these dead-beat dad's, are not really men.
Yes they're are men in physical size, and in age.
But they still lack the qualities necessary to be truly called men.
The true measure of a man, is not measured by his height… [view original content]
I'm a guy. So my answer to that question is logically that it isn't my place to make a choice like that. If a woman wants to abort a fetus s… morehe has no intention of raising or taking care of, why not? People get so caught up in the morality of it that they don't realize that some woman aren't parenting material.
Now, if a woman is in a relationship with another person. I'd hope the woman would address her significant other about her interest in aborting. The statistic that disgusts me is that a lot of "women" (which I use that term in this situation loosely) will cheat on their husband or boyfriend, get knocked up, and doesn't knows who's it is. So, without telling their spouse, just go and abort the fetus without any recourse. Now that's fucked up.
I suppose. But there's money, paperwork, and a lot of time to finalize that process.
My opinion still stands. I'm a male, so it's not ultimately up to me to be the "moral police" (as much as I like to at times). Again, if it was my girlfriend. I'd hope she'd trust me enough to inform me about that kind of decision if she was curios about it, y'know?
But it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man, yeah it might mean that we don't know the pain and suffering, but there are also women (for example Tinni) who are against abortions, so I feel like it's not impossible to experienxe birth and still be against abortion, no amount of temporary pain (especially solely 9 months of it) can justify the prevention of life in my eyes.
It's certsinly controversial to most people, but in my opinion the answer is crystal clear.
I suppose. But there's money, paperwork, and a lot of time to finalize that process.
My opinion still stands. I'm a male, so it's not ult… moreimately up to me to be the "moral police" (as much as I like to at times). Again, if it was my girlfriend. I'd hope she'd trust me enough to inform me about that kind of decision if she was curios about it, y'know?
I respect your opinion, fully. I find myself on the neutral side of this particular argument with some decisiveness sprinkled in. One thing that makes up my decisions has always been can I relate to an argument? If not, I excuse myself somewhat from it. I'm a man, so I personally believe it's not entirely my place to decide for the women what they should do to the life they're no doubt the ones that carry for an entire nine months.
I understand.
But it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man, yeah it might mean that we don't know the pain and suffering, but there a… morere also women (for example Tinni) who are against abortions, so I feel like it's not impossible to experienxe birth and still be against abortion, no amount of temporary pain (especially solely 9 months of it) can justify the prevention of life in my eyes.
It's certsinly controversial to most people, but in my opinion the answer is crystal clear.
I respect your opinion, fully. I find myself on the neutral side of this particular argument with some decisiveness sprinkled in. One thing … morethat makes up my decisions has always been can I relate to an argument? If not, I excuse myself somewhat from it. I'm a man, so I personally believe it's not entirely my place to decide for the women what they should do to the life they're no doubt the ones that carry for an entire nine months.
We're talking about the potential to live here, regardless of how you personally want to define life. The fact doesn't change that if you were to do nothing about the pregnancy, a human being would be born. So it seems rather illogical to just wave the argument away and insist that no one is being affected other than the mother when that isn't truly the case. You're still depriving a human being of the chance to live, so clearly you are having an affect on it.
You prevent life every time you use birth control, or the day after pill, or even a condom. By directly intervening with the process (as with abortion) you take steps to prevent the eventual birth of the child. I, and many others, don't see a grouping of cells any more alive than the genetic material that comes together to make the cells in the first place (sperm and egg). If you were to do nothing during sex except have sex then a human being would (likely) be born. Should we consider the basic components of a human being to be a human? If so, then preventing the birth of a child in any form is immoral and wrong, which is simply not correct, nor is it feasible. No one is being affect but the mother because that child is not alive. You cannot affect something (again, beyond the likeness of moving a rock or the air) that does not exist.
As I explained above, it doesn't matter how you personally want to define "living", the act of abortion still affects another human being's chance at life. That is irrefutable. If the fetus were left to naturally progress, it would be born into the world, free to live it's life. You're still extinguishing life by going through with the process of abortion. You're actively preventing someone from being born. Lowering the "value" of life for the woman in question isn't really a legitimate and fair argument when the alternative is totally removing all value of life in regards to the unborn child. The more and more we dissect the arguments for pro-choice, the more we see how selfish and unfair the choice of abortion really is.
The argument derives completely from how you define "living." The abortion doesn't affect another human beings life, because there is only one life. Natural process and our intervention discussed above. You are not extinguishing life. If the woman wants an abortion, then the only life that is affected is the life of the mother. It's a completely legitimate argument because the child is nothing more than a group of cells, the mother is a fully functional, thinking, living human being, the fetus is not. I won't argue that abortion isn't selfish, in most cases I would actually agree with you, but that doesn't give me, or anyone else, to force a woman to give birth if she doesn't want to. It's unfair to expect all woman to be okay with it.
Affected is one of those words. You can affect the air, or a rock, they are not living. Neither is the clump of cells. The mother is the onl… morey one who is being affected on a level beyond that of moving the placement and arrangement of a group of atoms. It is not a life in question, the only life in question is that of the mother
This isn't a parallel comparison, as the things that you listed are what they are. They aren't going to change, and they are not sentient. We're talking about the potential to live here, regardless of how you personally want to define life. The fact doesn't change that if you were to do nothing about the pregnancy, a human being would be born. So it seems rather illogical to just wave the argument away and insist that no one is being affected other than the mother when that isn't truly the case. You're still depriving a human being of the chance to live, so clearly you are having an affect on it.
The fetu… [view original content]
This will be purely theoretical, but just think about this situation and tell me how you feel about it. Assume you are married, and your wife gets raped and gets pregnant from it. Are you going to want her to go through that pregnancy, and then raise that child as your own?
How is that fair to the child though..? Killing the unborn born baby just because of the undesirable circumstances that led to the pregnancy… more is still not acceptable in my opinion. Obviously it would be difficult for the mother to go through with the pregnancy, but this does not justify robbing someone of their chance to live.
I had a feeling someone was going to bring this scenario up, and it is something I have definitely thought about in the past. It would for sure be a difficult situation, but I would still want her to go through with the pregnancy even knowing that the baby is not my own and was conceived through horrible circumstances. After giving birth, the child could always be given up for adoption. I don't believe the fate of the unborn child should be affected by the circumstances of the pregnancy, as it really isn't fair to them at all.
This will be purely theoretical, but just think about this situation and tell me how you feel about it. Assume you are married, and your wif… moree gets raped and gets pregnant from it. Are you going to want her to go through that pregnancy, and then raise that child as your own?
How is that fair to the child though..? Killing the unborn born baby just because of the undesirable circumstances that led to the pregnancy… more is still not acceptable in my opinion. Obviously it would be difficult for the mother to go through with the pregnancy, but this does not justify robbing someone of their chance to live.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality, and shouldn't be dictated one way or the other by law. In the scenario I presented, you and your theoretical wife may want to keep the child for that reason. If that is what you decide then that is up to you. I wouldn't want to force you to do the opposite of what you think is right, nor would I want the law to.
For me, in that scenario I am pro-abortion. The cost of having that baby, especially if a c-section is needed, is just too steep. Besides emotional reasons, which push me towards abortion, financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child. I wouldn't even expect her to want to have that child, nor would I expect her (or me) to want to pay for it. The fetus would be paying for the sins of its father, and I would be perfectly fine with that. I would lose no sleep if my theoretical wife aborted a child forced unto her. This may make me a murderer in your eyes and others, but I can live with that. I'd rather live with a label than with the financial and emotional burden of an unwanted child.
As for abortion for other reasons, like people not using protection, I think they should take responsibility for their actions. Again though, financial capabilities come into play. Poor people really can't afford to have babies they didn't want. Underage people can't really afford the time or money to raise their kids. If you have the financial capability to raise a child I think you should. If you don't, I don't think the woman should have to lose out on potential time earning money that could be used to support a baby she could keep, on delivering and giving away a baby she can't.
So I'm pro-abortion, but I'm not pro-abortion for people that want one just on a whim. If there is a legitimate reason, be it rape or financial, I think abortion is perfectly acceptable.
I had a feeling someone was going to bring this scenario up, and it is something I have definitely thought about in the past. It would for s… moreure be a difficult situation, but I would still want her to go through with the pregnancy even knowing that the baby is not my own and was conceived through horrible circumstances. After giving birth, the child could always be given up for adoption. I don't believe the fate of the unborn child should be affected by the circumstances of the pregnancy, as it really isn't fair to them at all.
Maybe not, but certainly not to the extent that her very life is being stolen from her. Going through a certain amount of angst doesn't even compare to having no say over having the chance to live. In this case it is more fair, and is only right to not interfere with the pregnancy.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality, and shouldn't be dictated one way or the other by law
I disagree, as I think the protection of human life (born or not yet born) is something that should be upheld by the law.
For me, in that scenario I am pro-abortion. The cost of having that baby, especially if a c-section is needed, is just too steep. Besides emotional reasons, which push me towards abortion, financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child. I wouldn't even expect her to want to have that child, nor would I expect her (or me) to want to pay for it.
Can't put a price tag on human life, right? It's just not right to me. Obviously this situation would be terrible for the parents, but that doesn't justify the snuffing out of human life in my opinion. Their potential financial and even mental detriments do not add up to unfairly (and unjustly in my opinion) taking away an unborn's life. And even if it did, that doesn't mean they have justification to just go ahead and destroy human life to ease their pain. Sure, it would be nice to just erase their pain/burden, but that comes at the expense of one of the most precious things in the world (the chance to live).
I would lose no sleep if my theoretical wife aborted a child forced unto her. This may make me a murderer in your eyes and others, but I can live with that. I'd rather live with a label than with the financial and emotional burden of an unwanted child.
Nah, I would never label you as a murderer in this case. I understand your reasoning here, and I understand you're just trying to be pragmatic about it. That being said, I don't really see the overall justification, and I have to disagree with the mindset. The amount of hardship you would go through (be it short term or long term) doesn't equal totally denying someone their life. As I said before, that is just completely unfair to the unborn child. They shouldn't have to pay the ultimate price for something entirely out of their control.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality, and shouldn't be dictated one way or the other by law. In the scenario I p… moreresented, you and your theoretical wife may want to keep the child for that reason. If that is what you decide then that is up to you. I wouldn't want to force you to do the opposite of what you think is right, nor would I want the law to.
For me, in that scenario I am pro-abortion. The cost of having that baby, especially if a c-section is needed, is just too steep. Besides emotional reasons, which push me towards abortion, financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child. I wouldn't even expect her to want to have that child, nor would I expect her (or me) to want to pay for it. The fetus would be paying for the sins of its father, and I would be perfectly fine with that. I would lose no sleep if my theoretical wife aborted a child forced unto her. This may make … [view original content]
I was going to stop here, but for some reason my emotions got the best of me and I kept rambling.
Plus "a certain amount of angst" is putting it extremely lightly when a rape is involved, much more so when they get pregnant, much more so when they don't want the baby, and much more so if they are forced to give birth. (Thank the gods that doesn't happen.) I honestly cannot picture forcing someone to have a child when they had nothing to do with it except being somewhere at the wrong time with the wrong person. As I said on the next page, talk about adding injury to injury.
You are thinking about a person who doesn't exist, I am thinking about a person living and breathing right in front of me (theoretically). I would suggest she keep the baby, I would tell her about all of the things she could do like keeping it, putting it up for adoption, finding a family herself to take the child. I would tell her of all the good things that could potentially come of it. I would do my best to keep her from an abortion. But if she were in a position she couldn't keep the baby and remain happy and/or intact psychologically or physically then there is no ounce of my being that could tell her that she would be giving birth with absolutely no taking into consideration what she wants or needs in her life to make her life worth living. It so... barbaric... to make someone go through such a traumatic event especially after such a traumatic event. I honestly cannot express in words how much the though of forcing a woman to carry a child for 9 months, give birth to the child, and have the entire situation weigh on her to her entire life, disgusts me.
Maybe not, but certainly not to the extent that her very life is being stolen from her. Going through a certain amount of angst doesn't even… more compare to having no say over having the chance to live. In this case it is more fair, and is only right to not interfere with the pregnancy.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality
"Personal" and "Morality" can't be together.
Morality is objective, not subjective and personal, there's 1 true answer and 1 only, there are no conflicting moralities that are both right.
financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child.
That is certainly a problem, I think there should be financial coverage from the government for the pregnancy and birth of a baby conceived by rape, it's not such a hard solution to come up with.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality, and shouldn't be dictated one way or the other by law. In the scenario I p… moreresented, you and your theoretical wife may want to keep the child for that reason. If that is what you decide then that is up to you. I wouldn't want to force you to do the opposite of what you think is right, nor would I want the law to.
For me, in that scenario I am pro-abortion. The cost of having that baby, especially if a c-section is needed, is just too steep. Besides emotional reasons, which push me towards abortion, financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child. I wouldn't even expect her to want to have that child, nor would I expect her (or me) to want to pay for it. The fetus would be paying for the sins of its father, and I would be perfectly fine with that. I would lose no sleep if my theoretical wife aborted a child forced unto her. This may make … [view original content]
This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to your latest post on that page yet). It doesn't matter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact that either way you're taking away human life by the very action of stopping it/ aborting it/ terminating it/ killing it.
Plus "a certain amount of angst" is putting it extremely lightly when a rape is involved, much more so when they get pregnant, much more so when they don't want the baby, and much more so if they are forced to give birth. (Thank the gods that doesn't happen.) .
You're splitting hairs. Don't get so hung up on my word choice. Of course going through rape and dealing with the pregnancy afterwards would be a terribly difficult thing to go through. I would have to be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.
I honestly cannot picture forcing someone to have a child when they had nothing to do with it except being somewhere at the wrong time with the wrong person. As I said on the next page, talk about adding injury to injury
And yet you can picture taking away the most precious thing in this world, from an unborn baby who has no say in the matter, from someone who is totally defenseless. I don't see how that makes any sense. It would nice if the mother could just erase her pain and not go through with the burden, but ultimately that price is being paid by the fetus, and there is no way that can be justified (for reasons detailed above).
I would suggest she keep the baby, I would tell her about all of the things she could do like keeping it, putting it up for adoption, finding a family herself to take the child. I would tell her of all the good things that could potentially come of it. I would do my best to keep her from an abortion. But if she were in a position she couldn't keep the baby and remain happy and/or intact psychologically or physically then there is no ounce of my being that could tell her that she would be giving birth with absolutely no taking into consideration what she wants or needs in her life to make her life worth living
Again, I understand the amount of suffering someone would go through under certain horrible circumstances. That doesn't make it reasonable to just wash away the pain at the expense of someone not getting the opportunity to live their life.
It so... barbaric... to make someone go through such a traumatic event especially after such a traumatic event. I honestly cannot express in words how much the though of forcing a woman to carry a child for 9 months, give birth to the child, and have the entire situation weigh on her to her entire life, disgusts me.
And yet you're totally fine with snuffing out human life/ actively preventing human life. How does taking away someone's chance to live = a mother going through emotional suffering for "x" amount of time? It doesn't equal out at all, and even if it did, it does not justify the actions of taking that out on a defenseless unborn baby.
Can't steal something you don't have.
I was going to stop here, but for some reason my emotions got the best of me and I kept rambling.
… more Plus "a certain amount of angst" is putting it extremely lightly when a rape is involved, much more so when they get pregnant, much more so when they don't want the baby, and much more so if they are forced to give birth. (Thank the gods that doesn't happen.) I honestly cannot picture forcing someone to have a child when they had nothing to do with it except being somewhere at the wrong time with the wrong person. As I said on the next page, talk about adding injury to injury.
You are thinking about a person who doesn't exist, I am thinking about a person living and breathing right in front of me (theoretically). I would suggest she keep the baby, I would tell her about all of the things she could do like keeping it, putting it up for adoption, finding a family herself to take the child. I would tell… [view original content]
And even so, all that horrible experience still does not compare to having the right of being alive taken from you.
You see, I don't know if forcing a woman to give birth is right, but one thing I'm certain of:
The core of the act of aborting a baby is not right the woman might choose not to listen, but it still is HORRIBLE, more horrible than the oh so terrible suffering (which almost every woman goes through 2-3 times in their lives mind you) that the woman has to go through.
I'm terribly sorry that a woman will have to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth to a baby, but it's what is necessary to endure if there's life on the line.
I'd like to hear what a woman will have to say if she ever meets a baby that survived her abortion, I want to see if she can look into his/her fucking eyes and tell him that s/he is a wrong answer someone tried to erase but couldn't quite get the job done!
Can't steal something you don't have.
I was going to stop here, but for some reason my emotions got the best of me and I kept rambling.
… more Plus "a certain amount of angst" is putting it extremely lightly when a rape is involved, much more so when they get pregnant, much more so when they don't want the baby, and much more so if they are forced to give birth. (Thank the gods that doesn't happen.) I honestly cannot picture forcing someone to have a child when they had nothing to do with it except being somewhere at the wrong time with the wrong person. As I said on the next page, talk about adding injury to injury.
You are thinking about a person who doesn't exist, I am thinking about a person living and breathing right in front of me (theoretically). I would suggest she keep the baby, I would tell her about all of the things she could do like keeping it, putting it up for adoption, finding a family herself to take the child. I would tell… [view original content]
I disagree, as I think the protection of human life (born or not yet born) is something that should be upheld by the law.
This is situational to me as I stated. Also, I support the death penalty, so I don't support the protection of all human life.
Can't put a price tag on human life, right? It's just not right to me. Obviously this situation would be terrible for the parents, but that doesn't justify the snuffing out of human life in my opinion. I think their potential financial and even mental detriments do not add up to unfairly (and unjustly in my opinion) taking away an unborn's life.
Actually you can, the practice was known as weregild. In my opinion, in a rape situation, it is right if it's what the raped woman wants. I'll continue on this in the next segment.
Nah, I would never label you as a murderer in this case. I understand your reasoning here, and I understand you're just trying to be pragmatic about it. That being said, I don't really see the overall justification, and I have to disagree with the mindset. The amount of hardship you would go through (be it short term or long term) doesn't equal totally denying someone their life. As I said before, that is just completely unfair to the unborn child. They shouldn't have to pay the ultimate price for something entirely out of their control. (And obviously it's not as if this unborn child would know any better, but that's besides the point).
I personally don't think that denying an unborn child a chance at life is more wrong than willingly undergoing a pregnancy you didn't want, and suffering potential financial debt, as well as a constant reminder of the events that lead up to it. Altering the entire course of your life due to an unwanted pregnancy that was forced onto you by a rapist is crazy to me. I don't really see the overall justification for it, and I disagree with the mindset. Adding all of these hardships on top of the rape itself, to me, is something I would never want to force upon anyone. That being said, if the raped woman wanted to keep the baby, I would support the decision. Grudgingly.
This entire debate is almost completely pointless though. This is one of those topics where no matter what is said and no matter how much reasoning is offered, no one is going to change their mind. These beliefs, one way or the other, are entrenched in people's hearts. I really don't even think a middle ground can be met on this one. There's either some cases of justifiable and legal abortion, which is too much for some people, or there's none, which is too little for other people.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality, and shouldn't be dictated one way or the other by law
I disagree, … moreas I think the protection of human life (born or not yet born) is something that should be upheld by the law.
For me, in that scenario I am pro-abortion. The cost of having that baby, especially if a c-section is needed, is just too steep. Besides emotional reasons, which push me towards abortion, financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child. I wouldn't even expect her to want to have that child, nor would I expect her (or me) to want to pay for it.
Can't put a price tag on human life, right? It's just not right to me. Obviously this situation would be terrible for the parents, but that doesn't justify the snuffing out of human life in my opinion. Their potential financial and even mental detriments do not add up to unfairly (and unjustly in my opini… [view original content]
You prevent life every time you use birth control, or the day after pill, or even a condom. By directly intervening with the process (as with abortion) you take steps to prevent the eventual birth of the child.
You're right, that's why I will never use protection.
We're talking about the potential to live here, regardless of how you personally want to define life. The fact doesn't change that if you we… morere to do nothing about the pregnancy, a human being would be born. So it seems rather illogical to just wave the argument away and insist that no one is being affected other than the mother when that isn't truly the case. You're still depriving a human being of the chance to live, so clearly you are having an affect on it.
You prevent life every time you use birth control, or the day after pill, or even a condom. By directly intervening with the process (as with abortion) you take steps to prevent the eventual birth of the child. I, and many others, don't see a grouping of cells any more alive than the genetic material that comes together to make the cells in the first place (sperm and egg). If you were to do nothing during sex except have sex then a human being would (likely) be born. Should we c… [view original content]
Morality is objective, not subjective and personal, there's 1 true answer and 1 only, there are no conflicting moralities that are both right.
"Personal" and "morality" go hand in hand. Morality is subjective, not objective and impersonal. There's no one true answer. There are conflicting moralities that are both necessarily right. Morality is not ordained by any government or religious figure. Morality is a distinction of what is right and what is wrong, and this perception is different for each individual person. This can be affected by some outside influences like books, and culture, but ultimately morality is completely personal.
That is certainly a problem, I think there should be financial coverage from the government for the pregnancy and birth of a baby conceived by rape, it's not such a hard solution to come up with.
This is probably the worst solution anyone could have conceived. So now, rather than put the financial responsibility on the rape victim, we put the responsibility on society as a whole by funding the pregnancy of a rape-child with taxpayer money. No.
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality
"Personal" and "Morality" can't be together.
Morality is objecti… moreve, not subjective and personal, there's 1 true answer and 1 only, there are no conflicting moralities that are both right.
financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child.
That is certainly a problem, I think there should be financial coverage from the government for the pregnancy and birth of a baby conceived by rape, it's not such a hard solution to come up with.
And even so, all that horrible experience still does not compare to having the right of being alive taken from you.
You see, I don't know if forcing a woman to give birth is right, but one thing I'm certain of:
You can't have rights if you don't exist. Forcing a woman to give birth is not right.
The core of the act of aborting a baby is not right the woman might choose not to listen, but it still is HORRIBLE, more horrible than the oh so terrible suffering (which almost every woman goes through 2-3 times in their lives mind you) that the woman has to go through.
My comment mostly applies to rape victims mind you, so this isn't you average 2-3 times. My idea on abortions made for more arbitrary reasoning isn't so steadfast as it is in this specific set of circumstances. That in mind, I don't feel the life of a nonexistent being is more important than the life of an existent being. "More horrible" lies in the hands of forcing a rape victim to give birth for something she could not control in the slightest.
I'm terribly sorry that a woman will have to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth to a baby, but it's what is necessary to endure if there's life on the line.
The only life on the line is that of the mother. And her life, self-worth, and happiness are vastly more important to me than a cluster of cells. I will give a living, breathing woman a shot to relieve pain before I would waste it on a clump of cells that isn't.
I'd like to hear what a woman will have to say if she ever meets a baby that survived her abortion, I want to see if she can look into his/her fucking eyes and tell him that s/he is a wrong answer someone tried to erase but couldn't quite get the job done!
That's... mean. Especially on the fact we are discussing a rape victim chances are the decision to abort was far from an easy one. If there were artificial wombs that would be fantastic, but there aren't, so forcing a woman to grow a human inside of her that she doesn't want (or even despises due to it's acquisition) and then give birth to it and have her live the rest of her life with that knowledge is not reasonable.
And even so, all that horrible experience still does not compare to having the right of being alive taken from you.
You see, I don't know… more if forcing a woman to give birth is right, but one thing I'm certain of:
The core of the act of aborting a baby is not right the woman might choose not to listen, but it still is HORRIBLE, more horrible than the oh so terrible suffering (which almost every woman goes through 2-3 times in their lives mind you) that the woman has to go through.
I'm terribly sorry that a woman will have to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth to a baby, but it's what is necessary to endure if there's life on the line.
I'd like to hear what a woman will have to say if she ever meets a baby that survived her abortion, I want to see if she can look into his/her fucking eyes and tell him that s/he is a wrong answer someone tried to erase but couldn't quite get the job done!
Morality is a distinction of what is right and what is wrong, and this perception is different for each individual person.
That's your conception of it, it comes down to whether God exists or not.
Here's an example for the twisted human conception of morality:
Tell me the truth, when you see on TV a tiger hunting down a zebra, do you go to the police and demand them to throw the tiger into a jail cell, or simply say "nature is amazing" and continue with your life?
If you don't demand that tiger to be judged, and do think that human murderers should be judged, it would be pure hypocrisy, to think that us humans can rule this world, enslave animals and create a fucking holocaust off of their lives, making such grandiose statements about how we are so fucking moral in our special way, do you think that is true?
^ That is one way in which humans are no better than animals, unless you acknowledge the fact that there is something beyond us that gives humanity the right to eat meat. It all comes down to God when talking about morality, because God is not affected by emotions and decides universally while humans make morals out of their own life experiences and individual perspectives.
Morality is subjective if God doesn't exist, and it's objective if God does exist, I believe you are atheist if you don't think there are criteria for "good" and "bad", right?
This is probably the worst solution anyone could have conceived.
Geez, I'm just 16, I guess putting the responsibility on the rapist is better.. Didn't think that through.
"Personal" and "Morality" can't be together.
Morality is objective, not subjective and personal, there's 1 true answer and 1 only, th… moreere are no conflicting moralities that are both right.
"Personal" and "morality" go hand in hand. Morality is subjective, not objective and impersonal. There's no one true answer. There are conflicting moralities that are both necessarily right. Morality is not ordained by any government or religious figure. Morality is a distinction of what is right and what is wrong, and this perception is different for each individual person. This can be affected by some outside influences like books, and culture, but ultimately morality is completely personal.
That is certainly a problem, I think there should be financial coverage from the government for the pregnancy and birth of a baby conceived by rape, it's not such a hard solution to come up with.
This is probably the worst solution anyone c… [view original content]
I still think that giving birth to a child against your will is more reasonable than taking away the right to live from someone, I guess I won't change your mind, nor will Belan...
You think they don't exist so they can be aborted, that's what you insist on, but they do exist upon fertilization and even if they don't, they are still taken the right to live, you can't transform a rock or particles of air into humans, while a fetus can grown into a full human being.
And even so, all that horrible experience still does not compare to having the right of being alive taken from you.
You see, I don't … moreknow if forcing a woman to give birth is right, but one thing I'm certain of:
You can't have rights if you don't exist. Forcing a woman to give birth is not right.
The core of the act of aborting a baby is not right the woman might choose not to listen, but it still is HORRIBLE, more horrible than the oh so terrible suffering (which almost every woman goes through 2-3 times in their lives mind you) that the woman has to go through.
My comment mostly applies to rape victims mind you, so this isn't you average 2-3 times. My idea on abortions made for more arbitrary reasoning isn't so steadfast as it is in this specific set of circumstances. That in mind, I don't feel the life of a nonexistent being is more important than the life of an existent being. "More horrible" lies in the hands… [view original content]
This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to your latest post on that page yet). It doesn't matter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact that either way you're taking away human life by the very action of stopping it/ aborting it/ terminating it/ killing it.
I'm going to avoid this because it is all pretty much addressed in our other conversation.
You're splitting hairs. Don't get so hung up on my word choice. Of course going through rape and dealing with the pregnancy afterwards would be a terribly difficult thing to go through. I would have to be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.
You're right, but I feel understating the event only makes it more appealing, or at least less negative, to force the woman to continue in a traumatizing fashion. Something I could never, and don't see how anyone ever could, do to a person.
Again, I understand the amount of suffering someone would go through under certain horrible circumstances. That doesn't make it reasonable to just wash away the pain at the expense of someone not getting the opportunity to live their life.
Back to our other conversation.
And yet you're totally fine with snuffing out human life/ actively preventing human life.
You prevent life every time you (or anyone) engages in sex while wearing a condom. Should we ban the use of condoms so that every possible human being gets the chance to live their life? There are millions of sperm that should have connected with an egg that never got to go any further, that isn't fair to the child that would have been born from that combination of genetic material, is it?
How does taking away someone's chance to live = a mother going through emotional suffering for "x" amount of time?
When that someone doesn't exist and the mother does, it's actually < (but don't misconstrue, the clump of cells is not a someone). Emotional suffering on this level can hardly be expected for be "x" amount of time... that is a life long baggage, only made worse by forcing her into more trauma. And that is what is disgusting.
Can't steal something you don't have.
This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to yo… moreur latest post on that page yet). It doesn't matter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact … [view original content]
Let us assume for the sake of argument that god does exist. Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality? Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
Geez, I'm just 16, I guess putting the responsibility on the rapist is better.. Didn't think that through.
Putting the responsibility is a much better idea, especially if the rapist can be caught and tried. It's a decent idea that works for both sides of the argument. If the woman wants to abort the child, the rapist should pay for it, and if she wants to have the child the rapist should pay for it. As well as serving his sentence.
Morality is a distinction of what is right and what is wrong, and this perception is different for each individual person.
That's yo… moreur conception of it, it comes down to whether God exists or not.
Here's an example for the twisted human conception of morality:
Tell me the truth, when you see on TV a tiger hunting down a zebra, do you go to the police and demand them to throw the tiger into a jail cell, or simply say "nature is amazing" and continue with your life?
If you don't demand that tiger to be judged, and do think that human murderers should be judged, it would be pure hypocrisy, to think that us humans can rule this world, enslave animals and create a fucking holocaust off of their lives, making such grandiose statements about how we are so fucking moral in our special way, do you think that is true?
^ That is one way in which humans are no better than animals, unless you acknowledge the fact that there is somethin… [view original content]
Forcing a living person into trauma for something that is not living is not more acceptable. It's disgusting. You're forcing her to either give birth or get it removed in a less safe way. If she truly wishes to get rid of it she will, and you're limiting her to a potentially harmful situation because you place the wellbeing of a group of cells over that of a real living person.
They aren't alive, so yes. They exist in no greater way than any other tiny globule of cells, the woman does. She can think, and feel, and love, and hate, and regret, and despise. She is living. They do not exist upon fertilization, for that logic they exist when the genetic material is in the same place (since this leads to the cell building process, which in turn leads to the creation of more cells and eventually a person). Two fetal cells in no more human than a sperm and an egg.
I still think that giving birth to a child against your will is more reasonable than taking away the right to live from someone, I guess I w… moreon't change your mind, nor will Belan...
You think they don't exist so they can be aborted, that's what you insist on, but they do exist upon fertilization and even if they don't, they are still taken the right to live, you can't transform a rock or particles of air into humans, while a fetus can grown into a full human being.
Comments
Exactly my point!
Exactly my point!
As men, when we become fathers, we to have a huge responsibility toward our children.
And that is to provide them with guidance, protection, love, and discipline.
And honestly, I believe that if a man is going to become a father, he has a legal and moral right to have a say in the child's life, even if him and the mom are not married.
It's not just up to the mom to decide how the child is raised, or how he is disciplined.
I also have to agree, that whole "my body my choice" is completely selfish.
By doing that the woman is not considering the unborn child, nor is she considering the feelings of it's father.
The father might be totally against it, as that child is a part of him.
Beautiful post, Tinni
Just on a side note, a fetus is human by virtue of their genome.
After 8 weeks of pregnancy the baby has a beating heart, a working brain and more necessary organs, most abortions of course are done after the 8th week.
And by the 23th/24th week, the baby can already survive an abortion, and a lot did, which is completely horrible and sick, but there are people in this world today that believe they don't have the right to live because some selfish mother was too much of a pussy to give birth to her child.
Just wanted to state why a fetus is, in fact, a human being, to clear it up. Upon fertilization, it's no longer a "potential human", but a developing human being.
Nice post Belan
Infidelity is truly disgusting, and possibly terminating your spouse's child because you're (not you, but them) a scumbag is really fucked up.
I like how no one pointed out I said preggers instead of pregnant...
No one cares.
thank you.:))
I agree completely with your take on a father's role, and how important their involvement in the raising of a child is. Too many people underestimate the value of a father being present in the life of their child. It saddens me.
Thanks for clearing that up. I had only chosen not to elaborate on this in my previous post as those supporting "pro-choice" tend to dance around it/ downplay the argument. Didn't want anyone to get side tracked on that portion of the argument when either way you look at it we're talking about extinguishing/preventing human life. Downplaying the existence of the fetus doesn't remotely save their side of the argument, so it's rather pointless of them to waste their time doing so.
Same to you. Thanks again for adding a little more detail/substance to my post
Thank you.
My Dad was very caring toward me growing up.
And that is truly to his credit, as his dad took off on him and my grandma, when my dad was 5.
And his step-dad wasn't all that crazy about him.
Yet my Dad, despite his not having an example of what it means to be a father, did the very best he could with me.
Yes my dad made mistakes as a parent, but he always did his best.
So from him, I learned the importance of having a father in one's life.
It is sad that there are so many dead-beat dad's out there.
And what gets me, is that they think of themselves as men.
REAL MEN take care of their families, and do what they know is required of them.
REAL MEN face their responsibilities, they don't run from them.
So these dead-beat dad's, are not really men.
Yes they're are men in physical size, and in age.
But they still lack the qualities necessary to be truly called men.
The true measure of a man, is not measured by his height, nor necessarily by his age, but by what he is on the inside.
Here's my viewpoint: "Sex is a wonderful experience, but it's NOT a game, as it can either result in children, or sadly in disease.
So, and this applies to both men and women, if you are having sex, be responsible by using condoms.
And if you don't wanna use protection, than you need to be willing to accept whatever consequences may follow.
And if you're not willing to do either one of the two things mentioned here, than you have NO business having sex.
PERIOD!"
You're welcome. I'm glad your father was and is such a positive influence in your life. I unfortunately cannot say the same for my father, he was not right in the head. Thankfully my mother made sure to expose me to many good men when I was little to make up for his downfalls, such as the pastor at our church, and local policemen and firemen. If anything, because of my time with my father I know everything a real man isn't and shouldn't be. As you said, real men will protect and take care of their families no matter what, they aren't cowards, they face their responsibilities, they love their children unconditionally and are present in their lives trying to be the best role model they can be.
agreed.
If you're not "parenting material", you give the baby for adoption, not kill it.
I suppose. But there's money, paperwork, and a lot of time to finalize that process.
My opinion still stands. I'm a male, so it's not ultimately up to me to be the "moral police" (as much as I like to at times). Again, if it was my girlfriend. I'd hope she'd trust me enough to inform me about that kind of decision if she was curios about it, y'know?
I understand.
But it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man, yeah it might mean that we don't know the pain and suffering, but there are also women (for example Tinni) who are against abortions, so I feel like it's not impossible to experienxe birth and still be against abortion, no amount of temporary pain (especially solely 9 months of it) can justify the prevention of life in my eyes.
It's certsinly controversial to most people, but in my opinion the answer is crystal clear.
I respect your opinion, fully. I find myself on the neutral side of this particular argument with some decisiveness sprinkled in. One thing that makes up my decisions has always been can I relate to an argument? If not, I excuse myself somewhat from it. I'm a man, so I personally believe it's not entirely my place to decide for the women what they should do to the life they're no doubt the ones that carry for an entire nine months.
I guess I can see why
Thanks. Not many "discussions" on abortions end with both sides amicably parting ways.
You prevent life every time you use birth control, or the day after pill, or even a condom. By directly intervening with the process (as with abortion) you take steps to prevent the eventual birth of the child. I, and many others, don't see a grouping of cells any more alive than the genetic material that comes together to make the cells in the first place (sperm and egg). If you were to do nothing during sex except have sex then a human being would (likely) be born. Should we consider the basic components of a human being to be a human? If so, then preventing the birth of a child in any form is immoral and wrong, which is simply not correct, nor is it feasible. No one is being affect but the mother because that child is not alive. You cannot affect something (again, beyond the likeness of moving a rock or the air) that does not exist.
The argument derives completely from how you define "living." The abortion doesn't affect another human beings life, because there is only one life. Natural process and our intervention discussed above. You are not extinguishing life. If the woman wants an abortion, then the only life that is affected is the life of the mother. It's a completely legitimate argument because the child is nothing more than a group of cells, the mother is a fully functional, thinking, living human being, the fetus is not. I won't argue that abortion isn't selfish, in most cases I would actually agree with you, but that doesn't give me, or anyone else, to force a woman to give birth if she doesn't want to. It's unfair to expect all woman to be okay with it.
lmao! Yeah xD
This will be purely theoretical, but just think about this situation and tell me how you feel about it. Assume you are married, and your wife gets raped and gets pregnant from it. Are you going to want her to go through that pregnancy, and then raise that child as your own?
Funny enough, ours did somewhat too.
I had a feeling someone was going to bring this scenario up, and it is something I have definitely thought about in the past. It would for sure be a difficult situation, but I would still want her to go through with the pregnancy even knowing that the baby is not my own and was conceived through horrible circumstances. After giving birth, the child could always be given up for adoption. I don't believe the fate of the unborn child should be affected by the circumstances of the pregnancy, as it really isn't fair to them at all.
Is that fair to the woman?
This sort of situation I believe comes down to personal morality, and shouldn't be dictated one way or the other by law. In the scenario I presented, you and your theoretical wife may want to keep the child for that reason. If that is what you decide then that is up to you. I wouldn't want to force you to do the opposite of what you think is right, nor would I want the law to.
For me, in that scenario I am pro-abortion. The cost of having that baby, especially if a c-section is needed, is just too steep. Besides emotional reasons, which push me towards abortion, financial reasons would not permit me to expect my theoretical wife to have that child. I wouldn't even expect her to want to have that child, nor would I expect her (or me) to want to pay for it. The fetus would be paying for the sins of its father, and I would be perfectly fine with that. I would lose no sleep if my theoretical wife aborted a child forced unto her. This may make me a murderer in your eyes and others, but I can live with that. I'd rather live with a label than with the financial and emotional burden of an unwanted child.
As for abortion for other reasons, like people not using protection, I think they should take responsibility for their actions. Again though, financial capabilities come into play. Poor people really can't afford to have babies they didn't want. Underage people can't really afford the time or money to raise their kids. If you have the financial capability to raise a child I think you should. If you don't, I don't think the woman should have to lose out on potential time earning money that could be used to support a baby she could keep, on delivering and giving away a baby she can't.
So I'm pro-abortion, but I'm not pro-abortion for people that want one just on a whim. If there is a legitimate reason, be it rape or financial, I think abortion is perfectly acceptable.
Maybe not, but certainly not to the extent that her very life is being stolen from her. Going through a certain amount of angst doesn't even compare to having no say over having the chance to live. In this case it is more fair, and is only right to not interfere with the pregnancy.
I disagree, as I think the protection of human life (born or not yet born) is something that should be upheld by the law.
Can't put a price tag on human life, right? It's just not right to me. Obviously this situation would be terrible for the parents, but that doesn't justify the snuffing out of human life in my opinion. Their potential financial and even mental detriments do not add up to unfairly (and unjustly in my opinion) taking away an unborn's life. And even if it did, that doesn't mean they have justification to just go ahead and destroy human life to ease their pain. Sure, it would be nice to just erase their pain/burden, but that comes at the expense of one of the most precious things in the world (the chance to live).
Nah, I would never label you as a murderer in this case. I understand your reasoning here, and I understand you're just trying to be pragmatic about it. That being said, I don't really see the overall justification, and I have to disagree with the mindset. The amount of hardship you would go through (be it short term or long term) doesn't equal totally denying someone their life. As I said before, that is just completely unfair to the unborn child. They shouldn't have to pay the ultimate price for something entirely out of their control.
Can't steal something you don't have.
I was going to stop here, but for some reason my emotions got the best of me and I kept rambling.
Plus "a certain amount of angst" is putting it extremely lightly when a rape is involved, much more so when they get pregnant, much more so when they don't want the baby, and much more so if they are forced to give birth. (Thank the gods that doesn't happen.) I honestly cannot picture forcing someone to have a child when they had nothing to do with it except being somewhere at the wrong time with the wrong person. As I said on the next page, talk about adding injury to injury.
You are thinking about a person who doesn't exist, I am thinking about a person living and breathing right in front of me (theoretically). I would suggest she keep the baby, I would tell her about all of the things she could do like keeping it, putting it up for adoption, finding a family herself to take the child. I would tell her of all the good things that could potentially come of it. I would do my best to keep her from an abortion. But if she were in a position she couldn't keep the baby and remain happy and/or intact psychologically or physically then there is no ounce of my being that could tell her that she would be giving birth with absolutely no taking into consideration what she wants or needs in her life to make her life worth living. It so... barbaric... to make someone go through such a traumatic event especially after such a traumatic event. I honestly cannot express in words how much the though of forcing a woman to carry a child for 9 months, give birth to the child, and have the entire situation weigh on her to her entire life, disgusts me.
"Personal" and "Morality" can't be together.
Morality is objective, not subjective and personal, there's 1 true answer and 1 only, there are no conflicting moralities that are both right.
That is certainly a problem, I think there should be financial coverage from the government for the pregnancy and birth of a baby conceived by rape, it's not such a hard solution to come up with.
This goes back to what we were discussing on the other page (haven't had a chance to get to your latest post on that page yet). It doesn't matter if you want to refuse to acknowledge them as living while they are developing in the womb, the fact remains that you are taking something away from them. How is this even disputable? If you were to not interfere at all, they would obviously continue to develop and be born into the world. So, through the act of abortion you are very clearly taking something away from them, regardless of whether or not you want to twist the argument into you personally not viewing them as being alive at the point the abortion is enacted. Your view on this doesn't change the fact that you're changing something, that you're actively preventing and stopping human life. To argue that you personally do not view the fetus as a living being is totally 100% irrelevant to the fact that either way you're taking away human life by the very action of stopping it/ aborting it/ terminating it/ killing it.
You're splitting hairs. Don't get so hung up on my word choice. Of course going through rape and dealing with the pregnancy afterwards would be a terribly difficult thing to go through. I would have to be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.
And yet you can picture taking away the most precious thing in this world, from an unborn baby who has no say in the matter, from someone who is totally defenseless. I don't see how that makes any sense. It would nice if the mother could just erase her pain and not go through with the burden, but ultimately that price is being paid by the fetus, and there is no way that can be justified (for reasons detailed above).
Again, I understand the amount of suffering someone would go through under certain horrible circumstances. That doesn't make it reasonable to just wash away the pain at the expense of someone not getting the opportunity to live their life.
And yet you're totally fine with snuffing out human life/ actively preventing human life. How does taking away someone's chance to live = a mother going through emotional suffering for "x" amount of time? It doesn't equal out at all, and even if it did, it does not justify the actions of taking that out on a defenseless unborn baby.
And even so, all that horrible experience still does not compare to having the right of being alive taken from you.
You see, I don't know if forcing a woman to give birth is right, but one thing I'm certain of:
The core of the act of aborting a baby is not right the woman might choose not to listen, but it still is HORRIBLE, more horrible than the oh so terrible suffering (which almost every woman goes through 2-3 times in their lives mind you) that the woman has to go through.
I'm terribly sorry that a woman will have to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth to a baby, but it's what is necessary to endure if there's life on the line.
I'd like to hear what a woman will have to say if she ever meets a baby that survived her abortion, I want to see if she can look into his/her fucking eyes and tell him that s/he is a wrong answer someone tried to erase but couldn't quite get the job done!
This is situational to me as I stated. Also, I support the death penalty, so I don't support the protection of all human life.
Actually you can, the practice was known as weregild. In my opinion, in a rape situation, it is right if it's what the raped woman wants. I'll continue on this in the next segment.
I personally don't think that denying an unborn child a chance at life is more wrong than willingly undergoing a pregnancy you didn't want, and suffering potential financial debt, as well as a constant reminder of the events that lead up to it. Altering the entire course of your life due to an unwanted pregnancy that was forced onto you by a rapist is crazy to me. I don't really see the overall justification for it, and I disagree with the mindset. Adding all of these hardships on top of the rape itself, to me, is something I would never want to force upon anyone. That being said, if the raped woman wanted to keep the baby, I would support the decision. Grudgingly.
This entire debate is almost completely pointless though. This is one of those topics where no matter what is said and no matter how much reasoning is offered, no one is going to change their mind. These beliefs, one way or the other, are entrenched in people's hearts. I really don't even think a middle ground can be met on this one. There's either some cases of justifiable and legal abortion, which is too much for some people, or there's none, which is too little for other people.
You're right, that's why I will never use protection.
"Personal" and "morality" go hand in hand. Morality is subjective, not objective and impersonal. There's no one true answer. There are conflicting moralities that are both necessarily right. Morality is not ordained by any government or religious figure. Morality is a distinction of what is right and what is wrong, and this perception is different for each individual person. This can be affected by some outside influences like books, and culture, but ultimately morality is completely personal.
This is probably the worst solution anyone could have conceived. So now, rather than put the financial responsibility on the rape victim, we put the responsibility on society as a whole by funding the pregnancy of a rape-child with taxpayer money. No.
You can't have rights if you don't exist. Forcing a woman to give birth is not right.
My comment mostly applies to rape victims mind you, so this isn't you average 2-3 times. My idea on abortions made for more arbitrary reasoning isn't so steadfast as it is in this specific set of circumstances. That in mind, I don't feel the life of a nonexistent being is more important than the life of an existent being. "More horrible" lies in the hands of forcing a rape victim to give birth for something she could not control in the slightest.
The only life on the line is that of the mother. And her life, self-worth, and happiness are vastly more important to me than a cluster of cells. I will give a living, breathing woman a shot to relieve pain before I would waste it on a clump of cells that isn't.
That's... mean. Especially on the fact we are discussing a rape victim chances are the decision to abort was far from an easy one. If there were artificial wombs that would be fantastic, but there aren't, so forcing a woman to grow a human inside of her that she doesn't want (or even despises due to it's acquisition) and then give birth to it and have her live the rest of her life with that knowledge is not reasonable.
That's your conception of it, it comes down to whether God exists or not.
Here's an example for the twisted human conception of morality:
Tell me the truth, when you see on TV a tiger hunting down a zebra, do you go to the police and demand them to throw the tiger into a jail cell, or simply say "nature is amazing" and continue with your life?
If you don't demand that tiger to be judged, and do think that human murderers should be judged, it would be pure hypocrisy, to think that us humans can rule this world, enslave animals and create a fucking holocaust off of their lives, making such grandiose statements about how we are so fucking moral in our special way, do you think that is true?
^ That is one way in which humans are no better than animals, unless you acknowledge the fact that there is something beyond us that gives humanity the right to eat meat. It all comes down to God when talking about morality, because God is not affected by emotions and decides universally while humans make morals out of their own life experiences and individual perspectives.
Morality is subjective if God doesn't exist, and it's objective if God does exist, I believe you are atheist if you don't think there are criteria for "good" and "bad", right?
Geez, I'm just 16, I guess putting the responsibility on the rapist is better.. Didn't think that through.
I still think that giving birth to a child against your will is more reasonable than taking away the right to live from someone, I guess I won't change your mind, nor will Belan...
You think they don't exist so they can be aborted, that's what you insist on, but they do exist upon fertilization and even if they don't, they are still taken the right to live, you can't transform a rock or particles of air into humans, while a fetus can grown into a full human being.
I'm going to avoid this because it is all pretty much addressed in our other conversation.
You're right, but I feel understating the event only makes it more appealing, or at least less negative, to force the woman to continue in a traumatizing fashion. Something I could never, and don't see how anyone ever could, do to a person.
Back to our other conversation.
You prevent life every time you (or anyone) engages in sex while wearing a condom. Should we ban the use of condoms so that every possible human being gets the chance to live their life? There are millions of sperm that should have connected with an egg that never got to go any further, that isn't fair to the child that would have been born from that combination of genetic material, is it?
When that someone doesn't exist and the mother does, it's actually < (but don't misconstrue, the clump of cells is not a someone). Emotional suffering on this level can hardly be expected for be "x" amount of time... that is a life long baggage, only made worse by forcing her into more trauma. And that is what is disgusting.
No, that's the definition.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that god does exist. Which interpretation of his will are we supposed to use to guide our morality? Do we use the texts of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam? Also, which of the religions within those parent religions do we use to guide us? And why are all of the others incorrect? Why do all of these variations exist in the first place?
Putting the responsibility is a much better idea, especially if the rapist can be caught and tried. It's a decent idea that works for both sides of the argument. If the woman wants to abort the child, the rapist should pay for it, and if she wants to have the child the rapist should pay for it. As well as serving his sentence.
Forcing a living person into trauma for something that is not living is not more acceptable. It's disgusting. You're forcing her to either give birth or get it removed in a less safe way. If she truly wishes to get rid of it she will, and you're limiting her to a potentially harmful situation because you place the wellbeing of a group of cells over that of a real living person.
They aren't alive, so yes. They exist in no greater way than any other tiny globule of cells, the woman does. She can think, and feel, and love, and hate, and regret, and despise. She is living. They do not exist upon fertilization, for that logic they exist when the genetic material is in the same place (since this leads to the cell building process, which in turn leads to the creation of more cells and eventually a person). Two fetal cells in no more human than a sperm and an egg.