Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you automatically assume that a child being born will ruin lives?Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront?
Why do you automatically skip the "possibly"?
Why do you constantly find things in people's posts that aren't there?
It possibly would "ruin" it, it possibly wouldn't. What's better? Forcing her to have the baby and going "Oops, our bad. We just f*cked up two lives.", or going with the other possibility and saving the QUALITY of life of someone who's already here? This all being irrelevant, as it's nobody's business but the woman's, technically. It's not even an issue to me, abortion I mean. I accept it's none of my business.
A woman could have the most convincing case ever, or she could be a **** using it as birth control. The latter is unfortunate, but so is the existence of the people on Earth who would force any woman to give birth if they had their way. So, I suggest they handle women who want abortions as we have to handle them; Deal with it.
-AC
Originally posted by Robtard
I am not debating "she" has to have the child as this topic is not about abortions being legal/illegal.I just don't see why people assume childbirth and being a parent is such a horrible thing and it will ruin lives... as you put it "feeding a parasite". That was my point/question a few post above
No, I did not say childbirth will be, I said pregnancy is.
And if we are only on topic, showing someone by law something that will most likely emotionally upset them is cruel. And should certainly not be condoned by the state.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because unless she was raped, she knew exactly what she was doing.
That reasoning is kinda stupid. I mean, how can you reasonably say that abortion should only be legal in some cases. Either it is a human being and then whether the mother got raped or not should mean ****, cause you don't kill humans because something bad happened to someone else. Or it is not a human being (which it isn't) and abortion is fair play (which it should be).
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you automatically skip the "possibly"?Why do you constantly find things in people's posts that aren't there?
It possibly would "ruin" it, it possibly wouldn't. What's better? Forcing her to have the baby and going "Oops, our bad. We just f*cked up two lives.", or going with the other possibility and saving the QUALITY of life of someone who's already here? This all being irrelevant, as it's nobody's business but the woman's, technically. It's not even an issue to me, abortion I mean. I accept it's none of my business.
A woman could have the most convincing case ever, or she could be a **** using it as birth control. The latter is unfortunate, but so is the existence of the people on Earth who would force any woman to give birth if they had their way. So, I suggest they handle women who want abortions as we have to handle them; Deal with it.
-AC
I didn't skip as I said it is a "possibility"... skipping would have been me saying "That couldn't happen."
I doubt the majority of my threads are what you claim, let alone it being a "constant".
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't skip as I said it is a "possibility"... skipping would have been me saying "That couldn't happen."I doubt the majority of my threads are what you claim, let alone it being a "constant".
You asked my why I'm assuming the child being born will ruin a life, I never said such a thing.
-AC
Originally posted by Bardock42
That reasoning is kinda stupid. I mean, how can you reasonably say that abortion should only be legal in some cases. Either it is a human being and then whether the mother got raped or not should mean ****, cause you don't kill humans because something bad happened to someone else. Or it is not a human being (which it isn't) and abortion is fair play (which it should be).
Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe what Sithy is saying is that she knew what she was doing in having intercourse and thus she must accept full responsibility for her actions. Her being raped is an exception to this.
That makes no sense, why is it alright to kill a human being in a case of rape?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You asked my why I'm assuming the child being born will ruin a life, I never said such a thing.-AC
You said "saving a life that's already in progress would be more pro-life than allowing another one to exist and possibly ruin both". Why would a child ruin a life? I agreed that it isn't an "impossible" scenario, but certainly not the most probable, and there's a huge gap between "saving" life and "ruining" life.
Saving both lives would be the most "pro-life" thing if we're discussing pro-life now.
Originally posted by Robtard
You said "saving a life that's already in progress would be more pro-life than allowing another one to exist and possibly ruin both". Why would a child ruin a life? I agreed that it isn't an "impossible" scenario, but certainly not the most probable, and there's a huge gap between "saving" life and "ruining" life.Saving both lives would be the most "pro-life" thing if we're discussing pro-life now.
I said it would POSSIBLY ruin it, not that it definitely would. Are you asking me quite literally how it would ruin it, should it exist?
Secondly, a foetus doesn't have a life. Alive/A life are two different things.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I said it would POSSIBLY ruin it, not that it definitely would.Are you asking me quite literally how it would ruin it, should it exist?
-AC
Yes, I am aware of how a mothers life could be ruined by a baby e.g. a young mother can't finish school etc., but that is subjective; the "ruin".
Edit.. I responded while you were editing... The Life/A live is not relevent to this thread really, that is more of a abortions being legal/illegal.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, I am aware of how a mothers life could be ruined by a baby e.g. a young mother can't finish school etc., but that is subjective; the "ruin".Edit.. I responded while you were editing... The Life/A live is not relevent to this thread really, that is more of a abortions being legal/illegal.
So if you're aware of how it could, why are you asking me the silly question: "Why do you assume the Mother's life will be ruined?". I don't, I said it's possible. Not sure why you're not getting it.
The life/alive thing is, if you're talking about saving "lives".
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So if you're aware of how it could, why are you asking me the silly question: "Why do you assume the Mother's life will be ruined?". I don't, I said it's possible. Not sure why you're not getting it.The life/alive thing is, if you're talking about saving "lives".
-AC
You should really use my entire post if it relates... More importantly I said "Though not impossible, why is it at the forefront ?"... You'll say it is not, so there we have it.
You actually brought up "saving lives" when you said "saving a life that's already in progress..." Anyhow:
Hypothetically speaking as it relates to this thread, if a fetus that was going to be aborted, but the mother decided not to go through with the procedure after seeing the ultrasound pictures for whichever reason; a "life" would technically be "saved" when the fetus passed the legal abortion threshold or at the very least when the baby is born.