Abortion

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are making a distinction that is meaningless to me. Humans change over their life time, and a fetus is just one of those stages. Face the fact that some humans have the right to kill other humans. If that wasn't the case then our military could not kill; our court system could not kill, and you could not kill someone in self defense.

I was going to make that point. If I go to Mexico and shoot a family dead, it's murder. But if my country declares war on Mexico and I happen to be a soldier, then that same family I killed is now a 'casualty of war'.

Now, what difference is there really when that family is still dead and they hadn't done anything to warrant a killing in either scenario.

It's all about interpretation, it was once illegal to have an abortion in the U.S., it could easily well change back, just need the majority of the people to interpret things a certain way.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was going to make that point. If I go to Mexico and shoot a family dead, it's murder. But if my country declares war on Mexico and I happen to be a soldier, then that same family I killed is now a 'casualty of war'.

Now, what difference is there really when that family is still dead and they hadn't done anything to warrant a killing in either scenario.

It's all about interpretation, it was once illegal to have an abortion in the U.S., it could easily well change back, just need the majority of the people to interpret things a certain way.

That better captures what I was trying to convey. That's why I don't like to focus on the "murder" bit too much.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was going to make that point. If I go to Mexico and shoot a family dead, it's murder. But if my country declares war on Mexico and I happen to be a soldier, then that same family I killed is now a 'casualty of war'.

Now, what difference is there really when that family is still dead and they hadn't done anything to warrant a killing in either scenario.

It's all about interpretation, it was once illegal to have an abortion in the U.S., it could easily well change back, just need the majority of the people to interpret things a certain way.

Are you asking me if is is wrong? In 120 years every person on the Earth, right now, will be dead. Eliminating suffering is far more important.

I don't believe in destroying someones future. The fetus has a possibility to have a future. Who knows what kind of person that child can grow into and become.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you asking me if is is wrong? In 120 years every person on the Earth, right now, will be dead. Eliminating suffering is far more important.

I'm agreeing with you, for once.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Who knows what kind of person that child can grow into and become.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I don't believe in destroying someones future. The fetus has a possibility to have a future. Who knows what kind of person that child can grow into and become.

Good point, said baby is likely to be a horrible person.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good point, said baby is likely to be a horrible person.

I think his point was that we shouldn't kill the fetus before it's given the chance to become the person it would be, whether they're a saint or a complete douche.

Originally posted by StyleTime
To be fair, this should not really factor into...anything.

Well, if you're going to be fair, then that would be a major arguing point. Fair would be giving the babe up for adoption and never knowing the mother and the mother doesn't have to deal with it.

Unfairs would be like:

Mother dies.

Mother's life is ruined because of child.

Baby dies because mother couldn't carry the child long enough.

Child's life is ruined because mother and or father never wanted it and, therefore, do not raise the child well.

Etc.

Of course, my logic is flawed because it first assumes, incorrectly, that the foster care and adoption system is perfect or close to perfect.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, if you're going to be fair, then that would be a major arguing point. Fair would be giving the babe up for adoption and never knowing the mother and the mother doesn't have to deal with it.

Unfairs would be like:

Mother dies.

Mother's life is ruined because of child.

Baby dies because mother couldn't carry the child long enough.

Child's life is ruined because mother and or father never wanted it and, therefore, do not raise the child well.

Etc.

Of course, my logic is flawed because it first assumes, incorrectly, that the foster care and adoption system is perfect or close to perfect.

Still probably better than parents who don't want a kid, resent the child or have no ability to take care of their baby.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think his point was that we shouldn't kill the fetus before it's given the chance to become the person it would be, whether they're a saint or a complete douche.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, if you're going to be fair, then that would be a major arguing point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair would be giving the babe up for adoption and never knowing the mother and the mother doesn't have to deal with it.

Unfairs would be like:

Mother dies.

Mother's life is ruined because of child.

Baby dies because mother couldn't carry the child long enough.

Child's life is ruined because mother and or father never wanted it and, therefore, do not raise the child well.

Etc.

Of course, my logic is flawed because it first assumes, incorrectly, that the foster care and adoption system is perfect or close to perfect.

Originally posted by StyleTime

Not really. The potential nature of a person was never the issue, and it never should be.

Yes, because that potential makes it more human and far harder to suck-up through a tube.

It's nothing more than sugar-coating the act of snuffing out a future human life, have your abortions all you like, just don't sugar-coat it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, because that potential makes it more human and far harder to suck-up through a tube.

It's nothing more than sugar-coating the act of snuffing out a future human life, have your abortions all you like, just don't sugar-coat it.

👆 I'm not used to this. 😂

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, because that potential makes it more human and far harder to suck-up through a tube.

It's nothing more than sugar-coating the act of snuffing out a future human life, have your abortions all you like, just don't sugar-coat it.

do you honestlyt consider POTENTIAL as equal to LIFE. well if that were true, then every time you ejaculated, masturbating, havingg sex or sleeping, you wud be wasting POTENTIAL life, just like every time a woman has a period, she is wasting POTENTIAL human life, infact even when you procreate, only ONE sperm, out of millions makes it to the egg. OMG all that snuffed out LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you shud understand that POTENTIAL life has no real significance other than aesthetical. its only EXISTING conciousness/self awareness that has value, and that only has a possibility of developing in the later stages of carrying, when the fetus creates enough neurons to even have a hope of supporting some vague description of the said qualities. THAT is what is valuable and, destroying which shud count as murder.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
do you honestlyt consider POTENTIAL as equal to LIFE. well if that were true, then every time you ejaculated, masturbating, havingg sex or sleeping, you wud be wasting POTENTIAL life, just like every time a woman has a period, she is wasting POTENTIAL human life, infact even when you procreate, only ONE sperm, out of millions makes it to the egg. OMG all that snuffed out LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you shud understand that POTENTIAL life has no real significance other than aesthetical. its only EXISTING conciousness/self awareness that has value, and that only has a possibility of developing in the later stages of carrying, when the fetus creates enough neurons to even have a hope of supporting some vague description of the said qualities. THAT is what is valuable and, destroying which shud count as murder.

Potential is irrelevant. Death is a part of life.

yes, but a life has to first EXIST, before it can be called death. i dont call destroying fertilised cells alone, death of a human conciousness/soul.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes, but a life has to first EXIST, before it can be called death. i dont call destroying fertilised cells alone, death of a human conciousness/soul.

Humans don't have a soul. We are animals. The distinction you are making is irrelevant.

Resistance is futile. Oh, wait, wrong forum. 😂

Originally posted by leonheartmm
do you honestlyt consider POTENTIAL as equal to LIFE. well if that were true, then every time you ejaculated, masturbating, havingg sex or sleeping, you wud be wasting POTENTIAL life, just like every time a woman has a period, she is wasting POTENTIAL human life, infact even when you procreate, only ONE sperm, out of millions makes it to the egg. OMG all that snuffed out LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you shud understand that POTENTIAL life has no real significance other than aesthetical. its only EXISTING conciousness/self awareness that has value, and that only has a possibility of developing in the later stages of carrying, when the fetus creates enough neurons to even have a hope of supporting some vague description of the said qualities. THAT is what is valuable and, destroying which shud count as murder.

A fetus is alive and it will become a human being, if left undisturbed (miscarriages withstanding).

Semen or a egg alone will not form a human being, so that comparison is absurdly ridiculous, not sure why people keep bringing it up, really, it's just stupid. There is a process, ie a sperm fertilizes an egg, then rapid cell splitting occurs, once this happens, the process of a human life has begun. This is basic biology.

That's a slippery slope, who draws the line when someone is "conscious" enough to be granted the right to live, you, me or? BTW, even at 15 weeks, a fetus response to touch, sound and brain function can be registered.

Having that said, have any abortion you like, just don't sugar-coat it to make yourself feel better. You'd be killing a fetus that would [most likely] become a person, just deal with it and accept your choice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That better captures what I was trying to convey. That's why I don't like to focus on the "murder" bit too much.

Well if you spent more time making proper points, like an adult, instead of calling logical thinking "Fail", maybe your points would come across more, and you'd come across like a bitter, tantrum-having child, less.

Not that any of your points make sense anyway. Using "Well, I'm religious." doesn't actually work.

Logic is like a nailgun, really handy at making everything fit together as it SHOULD, but in your case...you can't use it correctly and are liable to put someone's eye out, so you should steer clear. You are, so...good, I guess.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think his point was that we shouldn't kill the fetus before it's given the chance to become the person it would be, whether they're a saint or a complete douche.

Could. Could be.

What happened to you? I leave for a couple months, return, and you've turned into some kind of Christian morals standard-bearer. Has marriage done this to you, or something? I don't remember you being this silly.

A FUTURE human life is not life at all, as the future doesn't actually exist. What matters isn't what it could possibly become, what matters is a woman's decision NOW, and what that foetus IS.

It IS either a foetus or cells. So no, it's not a human life, it's not "going" to become anything unless the woman decides to let it.

Originally posted by Robtard
A fetus is alive and it will become a human being, if left undisturbed (miscarriages withstanding).

Semen or a egg alone will not form a human being, so that comparison is absurdly ridiculous, not sure why people keep bringing it up, really, it's just stupid. There is a process, ie a sperm fertilizes an egg, then rapid cell splitting occurs, once this happens, the process of a human life has begun. This is basic biology.

That's a slippery slope, who draws the line when someone is "conscious" enough to be granted the right to live, you, me or? BTW, even at 15 weeks, a fetus response to tough and sound.

Having that said, have any abortion you like, just don't sugar-coat it to make yourself feel better. You'd be killing a fetus that would [most likely] become a person, just deal with itand accept your choice.

If undisturbed. It won't be, so then that's irrelevant.

It doesn't have A LIFE at any point of abortion, it is sustained and kept alive by the mother. It's ALIVE, it's not in possession of a LIFE.

It does not have as much of a life as you or I. A foetus or cells are not equal to me or you, and I refuse to treat them as such. Thankfully, so does science it seems.

Most people CAN and DO accept their decision, that's the whole point. The only people whining are the religious, anti-abortionists. "Have you thought about this?", "Yes.", "But have you REALLY?", "Yes, let me go into the clinic.", "But...you see...adoption.".

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Could. Could be.

What happened to you? I leave for a couple months, return, and you've turned into some kind of Christian morals standard-bearer.

A FUTURE human life is not life at all, as the future doesn't actually exist. What matters isn't what it could possibly become, what matters is a woman's decision NOW, and what that foetus IS.

It IS either a foetus or cells. So no, it's not a human life, it's not "going" to become anything unless the woman decides to let it.

-AC

Ha, not even close.

I'm not for making abortions illegal. Just the sugar-coating to make someone's choice in ending a developing human at a certain stage in life (let's face it, human life is full of stages) is ridiculous.