Originally posted by chillmeistergen
What if it turns out that ol' Seb, is a bit of a smack head and has been using dirty needles?Does look like a bit of a heroin user.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The point isn't in whether one is deadly or not, it's taking apart the argument of "You were irresponsible, so you don't deserve an abortion.".If you f*ck around without a condom, someone could easily say you don't deserve treatment.
I've covered this with my above point.
If she knows for 100% certain that neither of them have STDs, then fine, and we don't have any proof she is actually infertile either do we?
-AC
Well, why would she have to give us, people of a discussion board, that she will probably never meet, actual proof that she's infertile? If she is, then she is, if she isn't, then she isn't.
Plus she's pro life, so I don't see the problem for her possibly getting pregnant.
Originally posted by Robtard
The difference there though, the treatment for an STD only affects the person, an abortion affects something else, besides the person. Why I think the analogy is flawed.
"Effect" of abortion is entirely subjective. It doesn't "affect" the foetus, and it both are in agreement and want it, who's to say it will affect the parents? The analogy isn't flawed, you're just not happy with it.
Originally posted by SelphieT
A disease that may be curable and the possibility of taking lives.....indeed, very different.
Taking lives? What "lives"? You mean the foetus? Doesn't count, as we've been over a million times.
You're missing the point cos she's your friend.
If you maintain the stance that irresponsibility is a reason to stop someone the right to avoiding consequences, or dealing with them in a less painful way, someone could easily say "You f*cked around, you got an STD, you weren't careful, you don't deserve treatment.". I'm not saying that's a good argument to ban treatment, I'm saying that's an argument to counter the "You don't deserve..." line of thinking.
Because it is.
Originally posted by SelphieT
Well, why would she have to give us, people of a discussion board, that she will probably never meet, actual proof that she's infertile? If she is, then she is, if she isn't, then she isn't.Plus she's pro life, so I don't see the problem for her possibly getting pregnant.
A) She doesn't have to, I'm just saying we haven't got any proof.
B) It's a pretty big claim. I don't believe those kind of things without proof, you might, but I don't.
She's not pro-life, she says she is cos she thinks that's what she should say. Everything she's said today says she's pro-choice.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Effect" of abortion is entirely subjective. It doesn't "affect" the foetus, and it both are in agreement and want it, who's to say it will affect the parents? The analogy isn't flawed, you're just not happy with it.Taking lives? What "lives"? You mean the foetus? Doesn't count, as we've been over a million times.
You're missing the point cos she's your friend.
If you maintain the stance that irresponsibility is a reason to stop someone the right to avoiding consequences, or dealing with them in a less painful way, someone could easily say "You f*cked around, you got an STD, you weren't careful, you don't deserve treatment.". I'm not saying that's a good argument to ban treatment, I'm saying that's an argument to counter the "You don't deserve..." line of thinking.
Because it is.
-AC
Yes, fetuses. I'm not pro life, but I respect what she believes in.
I'm not thinking about her only as a friend, but as an average person. Other people may not be infertile, but many still have sex with their partners without protection. And I do see what you are trying to say. And even if she did get pregnant, and she's pro life, do you think she would want to know if she deserved an abortion? It wouldn't matter.
And if someone denied you the rights to have an abortion, because you "f*cked up and deserve" that baby, there's always other archaic methods if you really didn't want the baby. shrug