Why do you think we're so goddamn different from them then? Do you really believe that all of the distinguishes between humans and animals are a result of mere evolutionary evolvement? I don't, oh well.
I never said we were so different. In fact, I spent the better part of my post drawing parallels between the two species. I do believe that all that distinguishes mammals is resultant of evolution, yes.
Taken directly from the conclusion on the site you linked me, "Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns." It states, "There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet."
Where? Inquisitions? Don't make me laugh, God never said to the Christians to do what they did.
How do you know that? Did he tell you?
On the other hand, God allowed humans to eat meat in Genesis.
And here's a fun fact: In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were vegans; they did not eat meat at all, and God only allowed humans to eat meat afterwards because he saw that humans can't control their urges to not murder and kill eachother, he still wanted them to live in peace with the animals.
So god's grand design formed in his image didn't quite work out how he expected, so he changed his plan a bit after the sloppy mistake. This helps to add credibility to your claim.
That is also why people believe when Christ will arrive they will all live in peace together again:
"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them." (Isaiah 11:6)
If god wants there to be peace between human and animal, why didn't he design a better human, and not make carnivorous species in the first place? This is all sounding very sketchy. Also, what will the Earth's carnivores eat once there is harmony between all? Will they just starve, or will they become vegans? I'm genuinely curious.
That's not relevant as long as God doesn't exist to you, is it?
It is relevant. If there is truly only one correct answer, how is it that so many in the past and present have gotten it wrong? One of these has to be the true answer, since they encompass everything we know about god and "his will." What is the true answer? Apparently millions, not just me, need enlightenment.
When I said "no criteria" I meant that it's not absolute and changes between people, I guess I should have phrased it better.
Also, tigers are not a part of human society, and do not follow human laws.
Why do you think we're so goddamn different from them th… moreen? Do you really believe that all of the distinguishes between humans and animals are a result of mere evolutionary evolvement? I don't, oh well.
Any omnivorous or carnivorous mammal that tops the food chain will eat the meat of animals it kills. The same mammal at the top of the food chain will also not be eating members of its own species
Humans are omnivorous, they do not need to eat the ones "below them" in the food chain (see this link: https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#conc)
There is nothing grandiose about eating other creatures, it's simply a fact of life.
Vegans live a healthy life without eating meat, there is not human critical need for meat in our lives, eating animals can be prevented for the simple fact that today's society has found replacements for meat.
… [view original content]
Mine was too, but he was also mentally unstable, so I don't know if he was in complete control of his actions. I want to be angry at him, but I also feel bad for him. I'm only sorry for our experiences because I can't help but think how nice it would have been to grow up with a good father.
Rape is never the woman's fault, nor is it the child's fault. It's solely the rapist's fault, taking away an innocent life isn't going to change what happened or make her feel better, now she just has to live with the fact that she killed her baby. Of course she didn't ask to be raped, and the baby didn't ask to be conceived. Taking it out on the only other innocent party will not soothe any wounds.
You also need to consider that the woman might not feel any better if she does keep the child. It may even result in something worse, as the child can be a living reminder of pretty much the worse experience the woman in question had. However, I acknowledge that this might be a hypothetical and not how it might go in real life, but it is something you need to consider. Just because she won't feel any better by doing abortion doesn't mean she'll feel any better by not doing it.
Yes. Human life is a continuous process, this is all basic Biology. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
I happen to be aware of that. Don't insult my intelligence by presuming I don't and going out of your way to explain it to me as if I'm some sort of idiot.
All I'm saying is that we can't point at something and say just because we didn't expect it or want it, that it doesn't/shouldn't exist. It … moredoes, it's living, and we now need to consider it on equal footing as one would with a fully grown human when making decisions regarding it's life, because it's a human in the midst of development.
Rape is never the woman's fault, nor is it the child's fault. It's solely the rapist's fault, taking away an innocent life isn't going to change what happened or make her feel better, now she just has to live with the fact that she killed her baby. Of course she didn't ask to be raped, and the baby didn't ask to be conceived. Taking it out on the only other innocent party will not soothe any wounds.
Yes. Human life is a continuous process, this is all basic Biology. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … … [view original content]
You don't need to cherry pick the sea of articles. Obviously there are factors at play here that limit the number of articles in defense of my position on the front pages of a google search (when searching a neutral question), such as pro-life supports being more outspoken on the internet, or more numerous, or more researched. Do you honestly believe that there are no defensive articles on the internet for my position? There are defensive articles for everything on the internet.
I didn't say you brought up false information. Ever.
Dude, those were literally the 3 first links that popped up, I didn't cherry pick the web from a sea of articles supporting what you said, i… moren fact, I didn't see a single one denying the fact life begins at conception but links to blogs and what not (with personal opinions), which are not legit places to bring you links to.
You want to call me out for bringing up false information? Prove it to be wrong and then accuse it of being wrong, not the other way around.
Yet you still haven't shown me a single legit place where it says life doesn't begin at conception.
It is living, the moment the egg is fertilized is the beginning of human development. This is what defines the characteristics of a living being in terms of basic text book Biology:
I thought the connotation was evident. Bacteria are living, but I would not put the life of a bacteria over that of a living person, the same (roughly) with a young fetus.
To quote Lingvort "Is the fetus at that point of life the same as the already matured adult? I doubt it. In my opinion, the "human" begins only when the baby starts showing signs of cognitive development. That's why I mentioned "mid-to-late pregnancy" as my example."
And I agree, I don't see a young fetus as a living person. Therefore I place the woman, a fully grown, developed human being, above something that I don't deem as such.
It is living, the moment the egg is fertilized is the beginning of human development. This is what defines the characteristics of a living b… moreeing in terms of basic text book Biology:
1.Living things are highly organized.
2.All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3.All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4.All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5.All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment of fertilization, the being is highly organized – it’s sex, hair and skin color, and facial features are already determined. From the moment of fertilization, the being has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and… [view original content]
You don't need to cherry pick the sea of articles. Obviously there are factors at play here that limit the number of articles in defense of … moremy position on the front pages of a google search (when searching a neutral question), such as pro-life supports being more outspoken on the internet, or more numerous, or more researched. Do you honestly believe that there are no defensive articles on the internet for my position? There are defensive articles for everything on the internet.
I didn't say you brought up false information. Ever.
I honestly don't feel the need to.
That's just it though, she doesn't have to keep the child, she can give it up for adoption if she wants to. Nobody has to die, she is not obligated to raise the baby if it's too painful of a reminder.
I'm not trying to insult your intelligence with my explanation, I apologize. I didn't assume you didn't know that, I'm also posting that information for everyone else reading the thread. I read through your previous comments and you said you wanted a reason to not abort the child that didn't have to do with morals, so I figured I should explain everything in depth scientifically. Again, I apologize.
Rape is never the woman's fault, nor is it the child's fault. It's solely the rapist's fault, taking away an innocent life isn't going to ch… moreange what happened or make her feel better, now she just has to live with the fact that she killed her baby. Of course she didn't ask to be raped, and the baby didn't ask to be conceived. Taking it out on the only other innocent party will not soothe any wounds.
You also need to consider that the woman might not feel any better if she does keep the child. It may even result in something worse, as the child can be a living reminder of pretty much the worse experience the woman in question had. However, I acknowledge that this might be a hypothetical and not how it might go in real life, but it is something you need to consider. Just because she won't feel any better by doing abortion doesn't mean she'll feel any better by not doing it.
Yes. Human life is a continuous process, this is all basi… [view original content]
He never says so in the scriptures, and Jesus certainly didn't, he preached us to love one another, not kill one another.
So god's grand design formed in his image didn't quite work out how he expected, so he changed his plan a bit after the sloppy mistake.
It wasn't a mistake, humans were designed to have their own free will, they happened to rebel against God and chose to do what he condemned, so he allowed them certain things, they were indeed flawed, but they are human, humans were always flawed in God's eyes:
"God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways." (Genesis 6:12)
If god wants there to be peace between human and animal, why didn't he design a better human, and not make carnivorous species in the first place?
God let humans choose, humans chose to do bad, you can't blame God for designing humans the way he wanted to, he wanted to give them the freedom of choice, and that resulted in them choosing the bad.
Also, what will the Earth's carnivores eat once there is harmony between all? Will they just starve, or will they become vegans?
Yeah, but things like that can be easily explained simply by the fact that if God were to exist, we didn't have to lean on biological claims since the concept of God means he can bend the rules of nature and nurture people on dirt if he wants to. If God indeed exists, it would be easy to explain that.
One of these has to be the true answer, since they encompass everything we know about god and "his will." What is the true answer?
It still isn't relevant since no matter who is right, God would still exist.
But if you insist, I can give you the information I have and rule out those who I know aren't true, but I don't know much about other religions so you'll have to help me out and ask me "why is x right and y isn't?" and I'll see what I can do.
Saying "Why Christianity is right and Islam isn't?", for example, will need to be accompanied by quotes from both scriptures that contradict eachother, since if the religions don't contradict eachother, they are basically the same religion.
Why do you think we're so goddamn different from them then? Do you really believe that all of the distinguishes between humans and animals a… morere a result of mere evolutionary evolvement? I don't, oh well.
I never said we were so different. In fact, I spent the better part of my post drawing parallels between the two species. I do believe that all that distinguishes mammals is resultant of evolution, yes.
Humans are omnivorous, they do not need to eat the ones "below them" in the food chain (see this link: https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#conc)
Taken directly from the conclusion on the site you linked me, "Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns." It states, … [view original content]
Oh, well. Either way, I don't think a woman, at least in case of rape, should be forced/coerced to have the child. It's not the best occasion. That's my opinion on that.
Oh, I see. You're arguing from a point that human life begins with conception, and therefore "killing" a fetus is the same as killing a fully-grown human. This is debatable, but, then again, it boils down to what person individually believes in - is a fetus already a human being or is it not yet one? We're not likely to agree on this point, but I can where you're coming from.
That's just it though, she doesn't have to keep the child, she can give it up for adoption if she wants to. Nobody has to die, she is not ob… moreligated to raise the baby if it's too painful of a reminder.
I'm not trying to insult your intelligence with my explanation, I apologize. I didn't assume you didn't know that, I'm also posting that information for everyone else reading the thread. I read through your previous comments and you said you wanted a reason to not abort the child that didn't have to do with morals, so I figured I should explain everything in depth scientifically. Again, I apologize.
But there isn't a massive difference. One stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction, and the other stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction.
Both bannings are supposed to be ridiculous, obviously banning condoms and/or banning abstinence is absolutely crazy. It's why comparing it to abortion is applicable, because forcing a woman to have a child is comparable to forcing a man to not wear a condom. They intervene with the creation of a human being, which, by your definition of morality, is apparently wrong despite any circumstances.
So, ban the condoms and have wild, uncontrolled sex to be fair to the greatest number of children possible!
You're arguing a fallacy here.
It is not the same thing. Just because both are related to birth does not mean the processes are the same.… more There is a massive difference between not fertilizing an egg and actually killing/destroying an already developing human being. In the case of the latter, a human being would be born into the world if left alone. In the case of the former... nothing happens, period. This alone shows that the two are not comparable. Would you argue that a 17 year old girl abstaining from sexual intercourse is actively robbing people of the chance to live? You could certainly do so, but it would be a ridiculous thing to argue, and is obviously vastly different from actively stopping/terminating an already developing human being. Am I personally robbing people of the chance to live because I'm not going around the neighborhood sleeping around? You could make the argument that I am, but that again is a ridiculous point to make.
Mine was too, but he was also mentally unstable, so I don't know if he was in complete control of his actions. I want to be angry at him, bu… moret I also feel bad for him. I'm only sorry for our experiences because I can't help but think how nice it would have been to grow up with a good father.
One is a human life in development, the other is just bacteria. They're not interchangeable. And the thing with human development is, there is not a stage where it becomes human, it's human from the very start. The general stages of human development are: zygote-embryo-fetus-newborn-infant-toddler-adolescent-teen-young adult-adult-elderly. At no point in any of the stages is there a different being. The being that was created once the sperm fertilized the egg is the exact same being throughout it’s entire life. The terms used to describe the unborn (zygote,embryo,fetus) do not dictate what type of being they are, just at what point of development they’re at. Human fetuses have human DNA and are complete beings. They belong to the human species.
If you're human, no matter what stage of development you're at, you're a person. Their life is just as precious and irreplaceable as ours is.
It is living, the moment the egg is fertilized is the beginning of human development. This is what defines the characteristics of a living b… moreeing in terms of basic text book Biology:
I thought the connotation was evident. Bacteria are living, but I would not put the life of a bacteria over that of a living person, the same (roughly) with a young fetus.
To quote Lingvort "Is the fetus at that point of life the same as the already matured adult? I doubt it. In my opinion, the "human" begins only when the baby starts showing signs of cognitive development. That's why I mentioned "mid-to-late pregnancy" as my example."
And I agree, I don't see a young fetus as a living person. Therefore I place the woman, a fully grown, developed human being, above something that I don't deem as such.
Do you honestly believe that there are no defensive articles on the internet for my position? There are defensive articles for everything on the internet.
I do, I just can't seem to find any legit ones.
I didn't say you brought up false information. Ever.
So there's not problem, if you think they're not wrong, you shouldn't argue that that life does not, in fact start in fertilization...
You don't need to cherry pick the sea of articles. Obviously there are factors at play here that limit the number of articles in defense of … moremy position on the front pages of a google search (when searching a neutral question), such as pro-life supports being more outspoken on the internet, or more numerous, or more researched. Do you honestly believe that there are no defensive articles on the internet for my position? There are defensive articles for everything on the internet.
I didn't say you brought up false information. Ever.
I honestly don't feel the need to.
Not under these circumstances. It's critical thinking. Plus the connotation of "living" I've obviously (or believed to be obviously) been using isn't that the cells are not alive. Because, obviously, they are living cells. All cells are, by scientific definition, living.
That's why I keep posting about biology, because it's scientifically proven that your life begins at conception/fertilization. I said this to someone in a different conversation, but there is no later stage where you just become human or are qualified as a human, you're human from the very beginning.
Oh, well. Either way, I don't think a woman, at least in case of rape, should be forced/coerced to have the child. It's not the best occasio… moren. That's my opinion on that.
Oh, I see. You're arguing from a point that human life begins with conception, and therefore "killing" a fetus is the same as killing a fully-grown human. This is debatable, but, then again, it boils down to what person individually believes in - is a fetus already a human being or is it not yet one? We're not likely to agree on this point, but I can where you're coming from.
Then only part way into the fetus stage do I, and many others, consider it to be a person. Only when it is "showing signs of cognitive development."
The being that was created once the sperm fertilized the egg is the exact same being throughout it’s entire life
No it's not. Just as a calf is not the same as a cow. 10 cells is not the same as 10s of trillions of them. DNA is continuous, yes, but it is not the same. Fetuses are not complete beings.
If you're human, no matter what stage of development you're at, you're a person. Their life is just as precious and irreplaceable as ours is.
In your eyes perhaps, not in mine. I value the life of myself, a newborn, a toddler, or a rape victim over that of a pre-cognitive collection of cells any day (with exceptions, of course).
One is a human life in development, the other is just bacteria. They're not interchangeable. And the thing with human development is, there … moreis not a stage where it becomes human, it's human from the very start. The general stages of human development are: zygote-embryo-fetus-newborn-infant-toddler-adolescent-teen-young adult-adult-elderly. At no point in any of the stages is there a different being. The being that was created once the sperm fertilized the egg is the exact same being throughout it’s entire life. The terms used to describe the unborn (zygote,embryo,fetus) do not dictate what type of being they are, just at what point of development they’re at. Human fetuses have human DNA and are complete beings. They belong to the human species.
If you're human, no matter what stage of development you're at, you're a person. Their life is just as precious and irreplaceable as ours is.
You're missing the point, zygote/embryo/fetus and human being aren't mutually exclusive terms. It's still an innocent human life no matter how you look at it, and that's a scientific fact.
Yes it is. The cow is still the same calf, just older. People change in appearance as they grow older but they are still fundamentally the same person they were at the very beginning. A fetus has human DNA, so they cannot be compared to bacteria, that is what I am asserting.
I disagree, but I don't believe I can convince you to change your mind.
zygote-embryo-fetus
Then only part way into the fetus stage do I, and many others, consider it to be a person. Only when it is "show… moreing signs of cognitive development."
The being that was created once the sperm fertilized the egg is the exact same being throughout it’s entire life
No it's not. Just as a calf is not the same as a cow. 10 cells is not the same as 10s of trillions of them. DNA is continuous, yes, but it is not the same. Fetuses are not complete beings.
If you're human, no matter what stage of development you're at, you're a person. Their life is just as precious and irreplaceable as ours is.
In your eyes perhaps, not in mine. I value the life of myself, a newborn, a toddler, or a rape victim over that of a pre-cognitive collection of cells any day (with exceptions, of course).
We will agree to disagree on that point then.
That's why I keep posting about biology, because it's scientifically proven that your life … morebegins at conception/fertilization. I said this to someone in a different conversation, but there is no later stage where you just become human or are qualified as a human, you're human from the very beginning.
But there isn't a massive difference. One stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction, and the other stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction.
Yes, there is. You're ignoring all context and only looking at the end result. It makes no sense to do so, and it is illogical to compare using that rationality. Obviously you can make the argument that abstinence is robbing people of a chance to live, but it's simply a silly point to argue... for very obvious reasons. In regards to abortion, we're talking about a human being that is already in development, opposed to discussing a simple unfertilized egg. As I explained above, the major difference in regards to abortion lies in the fact that you actually have to take action to stop a fetus from being born. You're actively engaged in putting an end to human life. This is not comparable to simply not reproducing. Yes, if we were to reproduce more then obviously more people would get to experience life, but this is not comparable to taking an already developing human being and terminating their development, thus killing them and ending their chance at life. Terminating an already developing human being =/= not reproducing.
They intervene with the creation of a human being, which, by your definition of morality, is apparently wrong despite any circumstances.
I have only argued against intervening in the creation of a human being in regards to a human being that is already in the process of being created. Again, it makes no sense to compare these things. It's ridiculous to argue about intervening in the creation of a human being that hasn't even begun the process of creation yet (fertilization leading to a developing human being), you and I are on the same page in regards to that. Being against intervention in the creation of a human that is actually in the process of being created (in the case of a developing fetus) is a very different story.
But there isn't a massive difference. One stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction, and the o… morether stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction.
Both bannings are supposed to be ridiculous, obviously banning condoms and/or banning abstinence is absolutely crazy. It's why comparing it to abortion is applicable, because forcing a woman to have a child is comparable to forcing a man to not wear a condom. They intervene with the creation of a human being, which, by your definition of morality, is apparently wrong despite any circumstances.
So, ban the condoms and have wild, uncontrolled sex to be fair to the greatest number of children possible!
If we're talking about sentience regarding humanity, then one can say that being unconscious, comatose, or dead would render someone non-sentient. In all those situations a person isn't sensually aware of their surroundings, and isn't having conscious thought. But that doesn't make them any less human. The life in question at conception will eventually become sentient, just as a comatose person can wake up, and an unconscious person will come to. (Obviously a dead person can't come back to life, but the point of the comparison is that they're still a human even though they're dead, they don't transform into a different being)
It's not really the same, the examples you provide had sentience at some point, but their cognitive abilities are now limited/gone. Babies, however, become sentient for the first time, as they weren't sentient prior to that stage of their development. The examples in question were thinking beings at one point, unlike still developing babies.
I'll stop now with this point, as it feels like I'm going in circles.
If we're talking about sentience regarding humanity, then one can say that being unconscious, comatose, or dead would render someone non-sen… moretient. In all those situations a person isn't sensually aware of their surroundings, and isn't having conscious thought. But that doesn't make them any less human. The life in question at conception will eventually become sentient, just as a comatose person can wake up, and an unconscious person will come to. (Obviously a dead person can't come back to life, but the point of the comparison is that they're still a human even though they're dead, they don't transform into a different being)
Well, I'm just Jewish in ethnicity, but accept Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) as the Messiah, since all of the Bible prophecies were fulfilled in him and I see no point in rejecting him (Orthodox Jews violently reject him and his followers in Israel, but I don't give a shit if I will be hunted down for what I believe in.)
The same can be said for you and me. At one point we weren't sentient, and at one point we couldn't speak or walk either. Doesn't mean we ca… moren't ever though, and are less important due to being in early stages of development. I just don't see why the significance of a human life diminishes because they haven't reached the developmental stage of sentience just yet. The point is that they naturally will become sentient without our interference, and to rob them of that is just cruel and unfair.
The same can be said for you and me. At one point we weren't sentient, and at one point we couldn't speak or walk either. Doesn't mean we can't ever though, and are less important due to being in early stages of development. I just don't see why the significance of a human life diminishes because they haven't reached the developmental stage of sentience just yet. The point is that they naturally will become sentient without our interference, and to rob them of that is just cruel and unfair.
It's not really the same, the examples you provide had sentience at some point, but their cognitive abilities are now limited/gone. Babies, … morehowever, become sentient for the first time, as they weren't sentient prior to that stage of their development. The examples in question were thinking beings at one point, unlike still developing babies.
I'll stop now with this point, as it feels like I'm going in circles.
Well, I'm just Jewish in ethnicity, but accept Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) as the Messiah, since all of the Bible prophecies were fulfilled in … morehim and I see no point in rejecting him (Orthodox Jews violently reject him and his followers in Israel, but I don't give a shit if I will be hunted down for what I believe in.)
The same can be said for you and I. At one point we weren't sentient, and at one point we couldn't speak or walk either.
Precisely.
The point is that they naturally will become sentient without our interference, and to rob them of that is just cruel and unfair.
Life is cruel and unfair. The world around is cruel and unfair. Going back to rape argument, the circumstances of those children's conception is cruel and unfair. Why does a child conceived in such a way need to be brought in a world which is just as cruel and unfair?
The same can be said for you and me. At one point we weren't sentient, and at one point we couldn't speak or walk either. Doesn't mean we ca… moren't ever though, and are less important due to being in early stages of development. I just don't see why the significance of a human life diminishes because they haven't reached the developmental stage of sentience just yet. The point is that they naturally will become sentient without our interference, and to rob them of that is just cruel and unfair.
Sorry for replying so late, I've been replying to so many people I forgot to reply to this post. It's that tough love again, not neglect.
The death penalty is an exception, as it is an upholding of the protection of life by punishing those who directly violate it. Those who commit murder really don't deserve to have their lives protected.
I agree 100%.
An unborn baby deserves to have their life protected, and I do not think this should be subject to the financial/ emotional situation of the parents. It's life should be protected regardless of that.
I've mostly been talking about in the instance of rape, but I basically agree with this. I disagree entirely in the case of rape. As for poor people and underage people, it's really not feasible, but like I've stated previously, they should have thought about that before having unprotected sex. My main point here is that I don't think it is worth having your life ruined by financial debt just to save an unborn child. If there was a plague and humanity was on the verge of extinction I might think differently, but that's not the case.
Well, sure you can. I didn't mean it literally, I was speaking more to what is morally righteous. I think there is a reason why such a thing is no longer around today
Not to say that I find this morally righteous, because I don't, but the people that practiced this did. As Western society has changed that has gone by the wayside, but at one point it was a societal norm. Circumstances heavily dictate morality.
But how does angst and finances add up to human life? It really doesn't. This baby only has one shot at life, and that shouldn't be stolen because of the emotional stress of the parents. It doesn't seem right to just say "Sorry bud, mom and dad can't handle the burden of the situation, so we're just going to make it all go away for them and rob you of your chance to live."
Angst and finances determine the quality of human life, certainly. Assume this is a single woman living in an apartment, working a shitty job and trying to pay her way through college because she has no support from her parents and isn't eligible for enough financial aid for whatever reason. She then gets raped. Now her stress level is going to be unhealthy for the unborn baby anyways, but she also finds herself unable to work as diligently, maybe unable to complete as many tasks due to depression. She fails out of college, and loses whatever financial aid she had. Then it's time to give birth. Turns out she needs a cesarean section, which costs her about $15,000. Now she's in debt, out of college, and has new expenses added onto her own, and all she has to pay for all of this is her shitty job. She doesn't have much room for advancement, because she failed out of college, and let's assume she isn't on good terms with her family. Now her only real option is to take the baby, that every time she looks at she relives the rape, and has to go to her parents whom she wished her entire life to get away from. Now every plan she has ever made, and every ounce of work she has done is gone. She is in debt, and her entire life plan, and all of her goals are gone. Her life is ruined. Her option now is, I guess, marry rich. She can't seem to be able to interact with men now though, due to emotional scarring. Now her unwanted baby's father figure is her abusive father that she spent her entire life trying to get away from.
Alternatively, let's assume that after the birth she gives the baby away. Now she still is living the same life due to financial debt, minus any additional expenses for the baby. Or even more alternatively, let's assume she died in childbirth.
These are pretty extreme example, but I'm sure they have happened, and will happen in the future. It may not be so extreme in every case, but in some cases it will be, and I don't think it's morally righteous to push ruination onto a person so that their unwanted child might live.
Mom and Dad's lives go back to normal (well maybe not, in the case of rape), but the babies one shot at life is gone forever. That just... seems incredibly unfair to me. Its hard for me to imagine how someone could personally be selfish enough to let their own shitty situation cause someone else to pay the ultimate price. It's hard for me to imagine that someone could honestly wash their hands of their life problems at the expense of an unborn baby. I strongly feel that emotional pain (maybe even short term) or financial struggles (maybe short term) =/= taking away someone's chance to live. The circumstances should not dictate the baby's fate.
I feel the opposite in this case, as you may have guessed, and I do think the circumstances should dictate a baby's fate.
Nahh, I'd hate to be obstinate.
Even if you're willing to hear every opinion presented to you, I truly doubt it will change your stance, and the same goes for me and everyone else. This issue is subject to the moral views of individuals, and those are very difficult to change.
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.
The d… moreeath penalty is an exception, as it is an upholding of the protection of life by punishing those who directly violate it. Those who commit murder really don't deserve to have their lives protected. An unborn baby deserves to have their life protected, and I do not think this should be subject to the financial/ emotional situation of the parents. It's life should be protected regardless of that.
Actually you can, the practice was known as weregild.
Well, sure you can. I didn't mean it literally, I was speaking more to what is morally righteous. I think there is a reason why such a thing is no longer around today
In my opinion, in a rape situation, it is right if it's what the raped woman wants. I personally don't think that denying an unborn child a chance at life is more wrong than wi… [view original content]
Yes, there is, because you're ignoring all context and only looking at the end result. It makes no sense to do so, and it is illogical to compare using that rationality. Obviously you can make the argument that abstinence is robbing people of a chance to live, but it's simply a silly point to argue... for very obvious reasons. In regards to abortion, we're talking about a human being that is already in development, opposed to discussing a simple unfertilized egg.
And a condom prohibits a sperm from reaching the egg, even once it has exited the body and should be on it's way to the egg. You think that because your position takes place further along in the process that it is a major difference, but you're still denying life to whatever being would have been created via that exchange, you're still preventing life. By using a condom you are doing what you preach against. Intervening on what should be the eventual birth of a child. You're guilty of killing any chance that the sperm and egg had and you are guilty of ceasing the creation of a human being. You stopped the process, just as abortion does.
But there isn't a massive difference. One stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction, and the o… morether stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction.
Yes, there is. You're ignoring all context and only looking at the end result. It makes no sense to do so, and it is illogical to compare using that rationality. Obviously you can make the argument that abstinence is robbing people of a chance to live, but it's simply a silly point to argue... for very obvious reasons. In regards to abortion, we're talking about a human being that is already in development, opposed to discussing a simple unfertilized egg. As I explained above, the major difference in regards to abortion lies in the fact that you actually have to take action to stop a fetus from being born. You're actively engaged in putting an end to human life. This is not comparable to simply not reprod… [view original content]
"I have only argued against intervening in the creation of a human being in regards to a human being that is already in the process of being created. Again, it makes no sense to compare these things. It's ridiculous to argue about intervening in the creation of a human being that hasn't even begun the process of creation yet (fertilization leading to a developing human being), you and I are on the same page in regards to that. Being against intervention in the creation of a human that is actually in the process of being created (in the case of a developing fetus) is a very different story."
I have already elaborated on why abstinence/ pregnancy prevention is different from terminating an actual in progress pregnancy.
Yes, there is, because you're ignoring all context and only looking at the end result. It makes no sense to do so, and it is illogical to co… morempare using that rationality. Obviously you can make the argument that abstinence is robbing people of a chance to live, but it's simply a silly point to argue... for very obvious reasons. In regards to abortion, we're talking about a human being that is already in development, opposed to discussing a simple unfertilized egg.
And a condom prohibits a sperm from reaching the egg, even once it has exited the body and should be on it's way to the egg. You think that because your position takes place further along in the process that it is a major difference, but you're still denying life to whatever being would have been created via that exchange, you're still preventing life. By using a condom you are doing what you preach against. Intervening on what should be the eventual birth of a child. You're … [view original content]
Just because life can be cruel and unfair doesn't give us the right to take someone else's life before they even leave the womb. Every human deserves a chance at life, and to knowingly interfere and steal that life away from them just because they don't yet have a voice or the means to fend for themselves is just not right. I'm not saying life is going to be sunshine and rainbows for them, hell, life isn't like that for any of us, but they should at least get the chance to live out their life the way they want to, it is not our place to say they don't deserve that. Once that life is terminated, that person is gone forever, they will never get another chance at life. It's better to have lived than to have not lived at all.
The same can be said for you and I. At one point we weren't sentient, and at one point we couldn't speak or walk either.
Precisely.
… more
The point is that they naturally will become sentient without our interference, and to rob them of that is just cruel and unfair.
Life is cruel and unfair. The world around is cruel and unfair. Going back to rape argument, the circumstances of those children's conception is cruel and unfair. Why does a child conceived in such a way need to be brought in a world which is just as cruel and unfair?
I guess that depends on your view of the creation of a human. When look at the process as a whole you're just as guilty killing the sperm as you are killing the fetus, because it stops the process. You're guilty of ending whatever would have come from the combination of those genes.
"I have only argued against intervening in the creation of a human being in regards to a human being that is already in the process of being… more created. Again, it makes no sense to compare these things. It's ridiculous to argue about intervening in the creation of a human being that hasn't even begun the process of creation yet (fertilization leading to a developing human being), you and I are on the same page in regards to that. Being against intervention in the creation of a human that is actually in the process of being created (in the case of a developing fetus) is a very different story."
I have already elaborated on why abstinence/ pregnancy prevention is different from terminating an actual in progress pregnancy.
Just because life can be cruel and unfair doesn't give us the right to take someone else's life before they even leave the womb. Every human deserves a chance at life, and to knowingly interfere and steal that life away from them just because they don't yet have a voice or the means to fend for themselves is just not right.
Fine, I won't disagree with that point. I, however, still stand by my point about the rape pregnancy.
Once that life is terminated, that person is gone forever, they will never get another chance at life.
Well, if you believe in reincarnation... Ah, well, that's a whole another matter.
It's better to have lived than to have not lived at all.
Ah, well, I can agree with that (or maybe I just don't want to argue anymore). We still all die in the end.
Just because life can be cruel and unfair doesn't give us the right to take someone else's life before they even leave the womb. Every human… more deserves a chance at life, and to knowingly interfere and steal that life away from them just because they don't yet have a voice or the means to fend for themselves is just not right. I'm not saying life is going to be sunshine and rainbows for them, hell, life isn't like that for any of us, but they should at least get the chance to live out their life the way they want to, it is not our place to say they don't deserve that. Once that life is terminated, that person is gone forever, they will never get another chance at life. It's better to have lived than to have not lived at all.
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. A person is not a person until it is cognitive. The conglomerate of cells will not know if it is aborted, the woman will know if she is forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want to have because she was raped. And I can live with something never existing (or that never reaches sentience), I can't live with forcing someone into something so heinous. For no other reason than to appease something simply because it "has human DNA."
You're missing the point, zygote/embryo/fetus and human being aren't mutually exclusive terms. It's still an innocent human life no matter h… moreow you look at it, and that's a scientific fact.
Yes it is. The cow is still the same calf, just older. People change in appearance as they grow older but they are still fundamentally the same person they were at the very beginning. A fetus has human DNA, so they cannot be compared to bacteria, that is what I am asserting.
I disagree, but I don't believe I can convince you to change your mind.
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.
(^ I know I beat this over the head a little and repeated my points several times within this one post, I simply wanted to make it as painfully easy to understand as possible)
I guess that depends on your view of the creation of a human. When look at the process as a whole you're just as guilty killing the sperm as… more you are killing the fetus, because it stops the process. You're guilty of ending whatever would have come from the combination of those genes.
They did exist though, you've just now willingly taken their life away, their chance to exist outside the womb alive has been stolen is what has happened. You aren't forcing them to raise the child, all we're saying is give the baby the chance to live that they deserve, no one is forcing the mother to keep the baby. It is not at all heinous to ask someone to allow an innocent human being that has done nothing wrong to live. It is infinitely better to be a rape survivor as well as the mother of a living child, whether you are in his/her life or not, than to be a rape survivor as well as the mother of a dead child, who's life you willingly stole.
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. A person is not a person until it is cognitive. The conglomerate of cells will not know… more if it is aborted, the woman will know if she is forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want to have because she was raped. And I can live with something never existing (or that never reaches sentience), I can't live with forcing someone into something so heinous. For no other reason than to appease something simply because it "has human DNA."
Sorry for replying so late, I've been replying to so many people I forgot to reply to this post. It's that tough love again, not neglect.
… more The death penalty is an exception, as it is an upholding of the protection of life by punishing those who directly violate it. Those who commit murder really don't deserve to have their lives protected.
I agree 100%.
An unborn baby deserves to have their life protected, and I do not think this should be subject to the financial/ emotional situation of the parents. It's life should be protected regardless of that.
I've mostly been talking about in the instance of rape, but I basically agree with this. I disagree entirely in the case of rape. As for poor people and underage people, it's really not feasible, but like I've stated previously, they should have thought about that before having unprotected sex. My main point here is that I don't think it is worth having your life ruined … [view original content]
Comments
I never said we were so different. In fact, I spent the better part of my post drawing parallels between the two species. I do believe that all that distinguishes mammals is resultant of evolution, yes.
Taken directly from the conclusion on the site you linked me, "Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns." It states, "There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet."
How do you know that? Did he tell you?
So god's grand design formed in his image didn't quite work out how he expected, so he changed his plan a bit after the sloppy mistake. This helps to add credibility to your claim.
If god wants there to be peace between human and animal, why didn't he design a better human, and not make carnivorous species in the first place? This is all sounding very sketchy. Also, what will the Earth's carnivores eat once there is harmony between all? Will they just starve, or will they become vegans? I'm genuinely curious.
It is relevant. If there is truly only one correct answer, how is it that so many in the past and present have gotten it wrong? One of these has to be the true answer, since they encompass everything we know about god and "his will." What is the true answer? Apparently millions, not just me, need enlightenment.
I gotcha.
Mine was too, but he was also mentally unstable, so I don't know if he was in complete control of his actions. I want to be angry at him, but I also feel bad for him. I'm only sorry for our experiences because I can't help but think how nice it would have been to grow up with a good father.
You also need to consider that the woman might not feel any better if she does keep the child. It may even result in something worse, as the child can be a living reminder of pretty much the worse experience the woman in question had. However, I acknowledge that this might be a hypothetical and not how it might go in real life, but it is something you need to consider. Just because she won't feel any better by doing abortion doesn't mean she'll feel any better by not doing it.
I happen to be aware of that. Don't insult my intelligence by presuming I don't and going out of your way to explain it to me as if I'm some sort of idiot.
You don't need to cherry pick the sea of articles. Obviously there are factors at play here that limit the number of articles in defense of my position on the front pages of a google search (when searching a neutral question), such as pro-life supports being more outspoken on the internet, or more numerous, or more researched. Do you honestly believe that there are no defensive articles on the internet for my position? There are defensive articles for everything on the internet.
I didn't say you brought up false information. Ever.
I honestly don't feel the need to.
I thought the connotation was evident. Bacteria are living, but I would not put the life of a bacteria over that of a living person, the same (roughly) with a young fetus.
To quote Lingvort "Is the fetus at that point of life the same as the already matured adult? I doubt it. In my opinion, the "human" begins only when the baby starts showing signs of cognitive development. That's why I mentioned "mid-to-late pregnancy" as my example."
And I agree, I don't see a young fetus as a living person. Therefore I place the woman, a fully grown, developed human being, above something that I don't deem as such.
You don't feel the need to substantiate your argument..?
That's just it though, she doesn't have to keep the child, she can give it up for adoption if she wants to. Nobody has to die, she is not obligated to raise the baby if it's too painful of a reminder.
I'm not trying to insult your intelligence with my explanation, I apologize. I didn't assume you didn't know that, I'm also posting that information for everyone else reading the thread. I read through your previous comments and you said you wanted a reason to not abort the child that didn't have to do with morals, so I figured I should explain everything in depth scientifically. Again, I apologize.
He never says so in the scriptures, and Jesus certainly didn't, he preached us to love one another, not kill one another.
It wasn't a mistake, humans were designed to have their own free will, they happened to rebel against God and chose to do what he condemned, so he allowed them certain things, they were indeed flawed, but they are human, humans were always flawed in God's eyes:
"God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways." (Genesis 6:12)
God let humans choose, humans chose to do bad, you can't blame God for designing humans the way he wanted to, he wanted to give them the freedom of choice, and that resulted in them choosing the bad.
Yeah, but things like that can be easily explained simply by the fact that if God were to exist, we didn't have to lean on biological claims since the concept of God means he can bend the rules of nature and nurture people on dirt if he wants to. If God indeed exists, it would be easy to explain that.
It still isn't relevant since no matter who is right, God would still exist.
But if you insist, I can give you the information I have and rule out those who I know aren't true, but I don't know much about other religions so you'll have to help me out and ask me "why is x right and y isn't?" and I'll see what I can do.
Saying "Why Christianity is right and Islam isn't?", for example, will need to be accompanied by quotes from both scriptures that contradict eachother, since if the religions don't contradict eachother, they are basically the same religion.
Oh, well. Either way, I don't think a woman, at least in case of rape, should be forced/coerced to have the child. It's not the best occasion. That's my opinion on that.
Oh, I see. You're arguing from a point that human life begins with conception, and therefore "killing" a fetus is the same as killing a fully-grown human. This is debatable, but, then again, it boils down to what person individually believes in - is a fetus already a human being or is it not yet one? We're not likely to agree on this point, but I can where you're coming from.
But there isn't a massive difference. One stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction, and the other stops the process of continuance in the natural process of procreation and reproduction.
Both bannings are supposed to be ridiculous, obviously banning condoms and/or banning abstinence is absolutely crazy. It's why comparing it to abortion is applicable, because forcing a woman to have a child is comparable to forcing a man to not wear a condom. They intervene with the creation of a human being, which, by your definition of morality, is apparently wrong despite any circumstances.
So, ban the condoms and have wild, uncontrolled sex to be fair to the greatest number of children possible!
I don't know anymore. I just try to forget.
I know how you feel. The PTSD makes it easier to deal with.
One is a human life in development, the other is just bacteria. They're not interchangeable. And the thing with human development is, there is not a stage where it becomes human, it's human from the very start. The general stages of human development are: zygote-embryo-fetus-newborn-infant-toddler-adolescent-teen-young adult-adult-elderly. At no point in any of the stages is there a different being. The being that was created once the sperm fertilized the egg is the exact same being throughout it’s entire life. The terms used to describe the unborn (zygote,embryo,fetus) do not dictate what type of being they are, just at what point of development they’re at. Human fetuses have human DNA and are complete beings. They belong to the human species.
If you're human, no matter what stage of development you're at, you're a person. Their life is just as precious and irreplaceable as ours is.
I do, I just can't seem to find any legit ones.
So there's not problem, if you think they're not wrong, you shouldn't argue that that life does not, in fact start in fertilization...
Your choice.
Not under these circumstances. It's critical thinking. Plus the connotation of "living" I've obviously (or believed to be obviously) been using isn't that the cells are not alive. Because, obviously, they are living cells. All cells are, by scientific definition, living.
yis
We will agree to disagree on that point then.
That's why I keep posting about biology, because it's scientifically proven that your life begins at conception/fertilization. I said this to someone in a different conversation, but there is no later stage where you just become human or are qualified as a human, you're human from the very beginning.
You never talked to a Messianic Jew? Yeah we're not common
Then only part way into the fetus stage do I, and many others, consider it to be a person. Only when it is "showing signs of cognitive development."
No it's not. Just as a calf is not the same as a cow. 10 cells is not the same as 10s of trillions of them. DNA is continuous, yes, but it is not the same. Fetuses are not complete beings.
In your eyes perhaps, not in mine. I value the life of myself, a newborn, a toddler, or a rape victim over that of a pre-cognitive collection of cells any day (with exceptions, of course).
I can't say I have. In fact I can't recall even hearing that term before
You're missing the point, zygote/embryo/fetus and human being aren't mutually exclusive terms. It's still an innocent human life no matter how you look at it, and that's a scientific fact.
Yes it is. The cow is still the same calf, just older. People change in appearance as they grow older but they are still fundamentally the same person they were at the very beginning. A fetus has human DNA, so they cannot be compared to bacteria, that is what I am asserting.
I disagree, but I don't believe I can convince you to change your mind.
You don't, however, become an actively thinking being at conception and even for some time afterwards.
Yes, there is. You're ignoring all context and only looking at the end result. It makes no sense to do so, and it is illogical to compare using that rationality. Obviously you can make the argument that abstinence is robbing people of a chance to live, but it's simply a silly point to argue... for very obvious reasons. In regards to abortion, we're talking about a human being that is already in development, opposed to discussing a simple unfertilized egg. As I explained above, the major difference in regards to abortion lies in the fact that you actually have to take action to stop a fetus from being born. You're actively engaged in putting an end to human life. This is not comparable to simply not reproducing. Yes, if we were to reproduce more then obviously more people would get to experience life, but this is not comparable to taking an already developing human being and terminating their development, thus killing them and ending their chance at life. Terminating an already developing human being =/= not reproducing.
I have only argued against intervening in the creation of a human being in regards to a human being that is already in the process of being created. Again, it makes no sense to compare these things. It's ridiculous to argue about intervening in the creation of a human being that hasn't even begun the process of creation yet (fertilization leading to a developing human being), you and I are on the same page in regards to that. Being against intervention in the creation of a human that is actually in the process of being created (in the case of a developing fetus) is a very different story.
If we're talking about sentience regarding humanity, then one can say that being unconscious, comatose, or dead would render someone non-sentient. In all those situations a person isn't sensually aware of their surroundings, and isn't having conscious thought. But that doesn't make them any less human. The life in question at conception will eventually become sentient, just as a comatose person can wake up, and an unconscious person will come to. (Obviously a dead person can't come back to life, but the point of the comparison is that they're still a human even though they're dead, they don't transform into a different being)
It's not really the same, the examples you provide had sentience at some point, but their cognitive abilities are now limited/gone. Babies, however, become sentient for the first time, as they weren't sentient prior to that stage of their development. The examples in question were thinking beings at one point, unlike still developing babies.
I'll stop now with this point, as it feels like I'm going in circles.
Well, I'm just Jewish in ethnicity, but accept Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) as the Messiah, since all of the Bible prophecies were fulfilled in him and I see no point in rejecting him (Orthodox Jews violently reject him and his followers in Israel, but I don't give a shit if I will be hunted down for what I believe in.)
Exactly. Using their natural stage of development against them really makes little sense.
The same can be said for you and me. At one point we weren't sentient, and at one point we couldn't speak or walk either. Doesn't mean we can't ever though, and are less important due to being in early stages of development. I just don't see why the significance of a human life diminishes because they haven't reached the developmental stage of sentience just yet. The point is that they naturally will become sentient without our interference, and to rob them of that is just cruel and unfair.
Do you live in Israel?
Precisely.
Life is cruel and unfair. The world around is cruel and unfair. Going back to rape argument, the circumstances of those children's conception is cruel and unfair. Why does a child conceived in such a way need to be brought in a world which is just as cruel and unfair?
Sorry for replying so late, I've been replying to so many people I forgot to reply to this post. It's that tough love again, not neglect.
I agree 100%.
I've mostly been talking about in the instance of rape, but I basically agree with this. I disagree entirely in the case of rape. As for poor people and underage people, it's really not feasible, but like I've stated previously, they should have thought about that before having unprotected sex. My main point here is that I don't think it is worth having your life ruined by financial debt just to save an unborn child. If there was a plague and humanity was on the verge of extinction I might think differently, but that's not the case.
Not to say that I find this morally righteous, because I don't, but the people that practiced this did. As Western society has changed that has gone by the wayside, but at one point it was a societal norm. Circumstances heavily dictate morality.
Angst and finances determine the quality of human life, certainly. Assume this is a single woman living in an apartment, working a shitty job and trying to pay her way through college because she has no support from her parents and isn't eligible for enough financial aid for whatever reason. She then gets raped. Now her stress level is going to be unhealthy for the unborn baby anyways, but she also finds herself unable to work as diligently, maybe unable to complete as many tasks due to depression. She fails out of college, and loses whatever financial aid she had. Then it's time to give birth. Turns out she needs a cesarean section, which costs her about $15,000. Now she's in debt, out of college, and has new expenses added onto her own, and all she has to pay for all of this is her shitty job. She doesn't have much room for advancement, because she failed out of college, and let's assume she isn't on good terms with her family. Now her only real option is to take the baby, that every time she looks at she relives the rape, and has to go to her parents whom she wished her entire life to get away from. Now every plan she has ever made, and every ounce of work she has done is gone. She is in debt, and her entire life plan, and all of her goals are gone. Her life is ruined. Her option now is, I guess, marry rich. She can't seem to be able to interact with men now though, due to emotional scarring. Now her unwanted baby's father figure is her abusive father that she spent her entire life trying to get away from.
Alternatively, let's assume that after the birth she gives the baby away. Now she still is living the same life due to financial debt, minus any additional expenses for the baby. Or even more alternatively, let's assume she died in childbirth.
These are pretty extreme example, but I'm sure they have happened, and will happen in the future. It may not be so extreme in every case, but in some cases it will be, and I don't think it's morally righteous to push ruination onto a person so that their unwanted child might live.
I feel the opposite in this case, as you may have guessed, and I do think the circumstances should dictate a baby's fate.
Even if you're willing to hear every opinion presented to you, I truly doubt it will change your stance, and the same goes for me and everyone else. This issue is subject to the moral views of individuals, and those are very difficult to change.
And a condom prohibits a sperm from reaching the egg, even once it has exited the body and should be on it's way to the egg. You think that because your position takes place further along in the process that it is a major difference, but you're still denying life to whatever being would have been created via that exchange, you're still preventing life. By using a condom you are doing what you preach against. Intervening on what should be the eventual birth of a child. You're guilty of killing any chance that the sperm and egg had and you are guilty of ceasing the creation of a human being. You stopped the process, just as abortion does.
"I have only argued against intervening in the creation of a human being in regards to a human being that is already in the process of being created. Again, it makes no sense to compare these things. It's ridiculous to argue about intervening in the creation of a human being that hasn't even begun the process of creation yet (fertilization leading to a developing human being), you and I are on the same page in regards to that. Being against intervention in the creation of a human that is actually in the process of being created (in the case of a developing fetus) is a very different story."
I have already elaborated on why abstinence/ pregnancy prevention is different from terminating an actual in progress pregnancy.
Just because life can be cruel and unfair doesn't give us the right to take someone else's life before they even leave the womb. Every human deserves a chance at life, and to knowingly interfere and steal that life away from them just because they don't yet have a voice or the means to fend for themselves is just not right. I'm not saying life is going to be sunshine and rainbows for them, hell, life isn't like that for any of us, but they should at least get the chance to live out their life the way they want to, it is not our place to say they don't deserve that. Once that life is terminated, that person is gone forever, they will never get another chance at life. It's better to have lived than to have not lived at all.
I guess that depends on your view of the creation of a human. When look at the process as a whole you're just as guilty killing the sperm as you are killing the fetus, because it stops the process. You're guilty of ending whatever would have come from the combination of those genes.
Fine, I won't disagree with that point. I, however, still stand by my point about the rape pregnancy.
Well, if you believe in reincarnation... Ah, well, that's a whole another matter.
Ah, well, I can agree with that (or maybe I just don't want to argue anymore). We still all die in the end.
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. A person is not a person until it is cognitive. The conglomerate of cells will not know if it is aborted, the woman will know if she is forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want to have because she was raped. And I can live with something never existing (or that never reaches sentience), I can't live with forcing someone into something so heinous. For no other reason than to appease something simply because it "has human DNA."
In case anyone was curious to why I said this, it was for the reason of how wrong it was, not actually funny to me.
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.
(^ I know I beat this over the head a little and repeated my points several times within this one post, I simply wanted to make it as painfully easy to understand as possible)
They did exist though, you've just now willingly taken their life away, their chance to exist outside the womb alive has been stolen is what has happened. You aren't forcing them to raise the child, all we're saying is give the baby the chance to live that they deserve, no one is forcing the mother to keep the baby. It is not at all heinous to ask someone to allow an innocent human being that has done nothing wrong to live. It is infinitely better to be a rape survivor as well as the mother of a living child, whether you are in his/her life or not, than to be a rape survivor as well as the mother of a dead child, who's life you willingly stole.
It's all good. I'll probably get back to you on this post later, as I have been at this debate for wayyyyy too long at this point lol.