Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If it is your belief that life begins at conception, then preventing conception would be murder.
no it wouldn't be because im not destroying something.
it's only after they've been fertilized that a life begins to exist and preventing a fertilization isn't murder because there was no life(as in a human being, not just "being alive" as you said) to begin with
Originally posted by Echuu
no it wouldn't be because im not destroying something.
it's only after they've been fertilized that a life begins to exist and preventing a fertilization isn't murder because there was no life(as in a human being, not just "being alive" as you said) to begin with
If I were to go back in time and prevent you from being conceived, I would have effectively murdered you.
Birth control and abortion serve the same purpose; to preclude unwanted pregnancies. The only difference is at which point each is implemented. It is therefore, inconsistent to argue that one is immoral while the other is not.
Quoting a couple of doctors doesn't matter. Because many more believe that it is just cells. Regardless, until it's born or more to the point, the stage at which most abortions are performed, to me it's not a baby.
Either way, what you think doesn't matter, nor what I think. We're never gonna have abortions. If a woman chooses to, it's up to her.
-AC
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If I were to go back in time and prevent you from being conceived, I would have effectively murdered you.Birth control and abortion serve the same purpose; to preclude unwanted pregnancies. The only difference is at which point each is implemented. It is therefore, inconsistent to argue that one is immoral while the other is not.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Going back in time to stop someone from being concieved isn't a reality, so that point can't be used...
According to whom? The analogy is logically consistent regardless of whether or not it is theoretically possible. Do not attempt to discount the analogy simply because it challenges the notion that preventing pregnancy and terminating pregnancy are not morally equivocal.
It doesn't matter if abortion is murder. The point here is choice. Choose to kill the baby if you want, but who are others to tell anyone that that is wrong? Okay, if you're pregnant, then you're infested... Who's to say that the mother isn't infested?? You people are getting caught up in symantics. Either enforce your beliefs on someone else, or don't. This is a free country, or it isn't.
What someone needs to explain, is how their beliefs should be enforced on another, and how that implies that the other party is wrong...or right. It doesn't matter to those who don't believe in what others do. If my choice not to have a baby implies eternal condemnation,then how does that implicate you? It's between god and I. Let me just say that the religious right, their suppot and benefactors, can kiss my royal-gay-non-believing-pesamistic-global warming-hate-war-questioning authority-ass.
America was founded by religious fanatics, and they still control the country today. "Hey! Let's leave England, because they are tooooo conservative... Let's go to the new world so we can live an extreme life based on Religious fanatacism...and centuries from now, despite the fact that the people have decided that the two shouldn't control the other, we should live like a people who were too ignorant to base a country based only on their beliefs. If you don't agree...the head to hell. While we're at it, lets burn a witch or two. BBBBuuurrnnnn HHHHhhhher!!!!
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And I have explained how your inconsistency makes you a hypocrite.
And I have explained to you why it is not being hypocritical, but all you seem to want to do is bait me into arguing with you.
It doesn't matter if abortion is murder. The point here is choice. Choose to kill the baby if you want, but who are others to tell anyone that that is wrong? Okay, if you're pregnant, then you're infested... Who's to say that the mother isn't infested?? You people are getting caught up in symantics. Either enforce your beliefs on someone else, or don't. This is a free country, or it isn't.
back in the dark ages you were allowed to kill baby's up to the age of 1 year old they weren't thought people yet no days that it thought the most evil thing ever now days you have until the born it unfair the woman should have to keep a baby that they don't wont but they can adopt as soon as its born and it more than just unfair to kill some one because they are young and we have dehumanised them like the Germans did to the Jews it would be murder
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I never said it was murder. I said it doesn't matter if it's murder. I personally don't think it is murder.I don't remember too much from the womb. I doubt I would have carried a grudge. Besides, I would be in heaven. Floating in clouds with pretty angels, and playing a harp with baby jesus.
*Scratches his head.*
Anyhow, I think I said something like:
"I explained how it is not hypocritical to approve of contraception but not of abortion. However, you seem to want to draw me into an argument about it even though I clearly explained my point several pages back."
The point is, if it came down to science being the reason for confirming or denying that abortion is a plus to humanity, it would be the latter.
Purely because at the time of abortion it's not a human and it's not murder. I'm perfectly and clearly aware of the fact that you believe it's murder, but it's not.
-AC
uh no, because the sperm hasn't fertilized the egg- the two haven't become anything yet.
I kinda like something reagan said a long time ago which is;
(paraphrasing of course)if you are in an alley and you see a paper bag that looks like there's something alive inside it, you aren't gonna kick it are you?
I find the glaring inconsistency of this argument to be amusing. It is okay to prevent fertilization that would result in the birth of a child but it is not okay to terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child. In both cases, a child is being prevented from being born, but they only find the latter practice to be objectionable.
I find it interesting that i've explained my point of view a few times very easily and once again it is this-
I disagree with abortion because it is destroying what the sperm and egg have created which, in my opinion, it is a developing human being.
I don't disagree with birth control because it is not destroying something that those two have already created- it is only preventing the fertilization whereas abortion is destroying the fertilized product.
I don't think that this is inconsistent whatsoever but you may think otherwise- it mainly depends if you think that the fetus is really a baby.