EPTIndiana bans abortion past 20th week - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Euclid
Canada126 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after. Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence. | ||
|
Euclid
Canada126 Posts
On April 30 2011 03:01 Whitewing wrote: Yeah, it sucks when people base their morals on logic, reason, and scientific evidence. Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro. | ||
|
GetSome
United States35 Posts
On April 30 2011 02:53 Silver777 wrote: I find it hard to understand how people can argue against abortion, but find it ok to live in air conditioned houses, browse the web, and just go about a daily life as when if you look at the things required for a daily life in developed countries its simply appalling. The sheer amount of wildlife, animals, and ecosystems destroyed along with other humans taken advantage of to produce simple goods to give you electricity, comfort and basic non-animal food stuffs and the sheer amount of of animals slaughtered to provide you with meat at the market/restaurants. Its really unfathomable how ignorant people are when they look at human life as something special and think "I would never harm anything, let alone an human infant" when they are part of the group destroying the entire planet and killing an unknown amount of "life". I recognize I'm a part of the group that lives a daily life and thus ends "life" on a regular basis, but I also recognize that its pretty "bleeping" horrible if you really think about it. Luckily I can just put that behind me and go on with my life of not caring since I will hopefully die of old age before any of the horrible habits currently used matter. Silver - it seems as though you have taken a very extreme point of view on this issue...more so then even me. If I understand you point of view correctly you are saying that we as humans, because of our "need/desire" for comforts, destroy an untold amount of life on a daily basis and therefore it makes those fighting for life (against abortion) hypocrites? Did I get that right? And if I read your post correctly you don't value human life any greater than the life of the cow we slaughter for food than? Well I do value human life above all other types of life and I do not apologize for it. This mentality drives many decisions I make and I will not apologize for those either. I believe that we could definitely do a hell of a lot better at managing our consumption, how we operate, how we treat the world around us, what we use, why, when, and where, etc...this can really use some improvement. But with that said I would not go as far as to categorize those of us enjoying everything this world has to offer as ignorant or hypocrites. Simply labeling us in one big group shows more ignorance on your part than those you are accusing... It is possible to care for and preserve nature, life, this world, etc and still value humans and our way of life too... | ||
|
GetSome
United States35 Posts
On April 30 2011 03:25 Euclid wrote: Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro.  I like this ^ | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On April 30 2011 03:25 Euclid wrote: Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro. ar·bi·trar·y 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government. Since it is based on law, the time lines are not arbitrary. They are, however, based as much as science, logic and reason as possible. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On April 30 2011 02:54 Euclid wrote: you gotta have some seriously twisted morals to believe that there is an arbitrary line where before the pre-determined point in time it is perfectly ok to kill the fetus but you are a child murderer if you do it after. But it's impossible not to draw an "arbitrary" line. Even if you say conception is the line, that's arbitrarily saying that it's okay to destroy the sperm and egg but not okay to destroy the zygote. The only possible moralities that wouldn't draw an arbitrary line are a) It's immoral to tamper with any chemical that could eventually become a building block of a life form (or human if you prefer) b) It's not immoral to kill. I find these neither practical nor defensible. | ||
|
Kaonis
United States243 Posts
Or an abortion. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 30 2011 04:07 Kaonis wrote: Fetus qualifies as a human because unlike a tree or fungus or animal it will eventually BE human, barring some event. Or an abortion. Yes, it'll eventually be human, but because of that potential, is it ok to infringe on the rights of someone that is currently a human? What about when it threatens the woman, or it was due to rape/contraceptives not working properly? What if the child is going to have a terrible life because the mother can't provide (and no, adoption isn't a legitimate answer to this)? Is it morally ok to say that the mother must suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, then potentially have the child suffer through a terrible childhood (or even their entire life)? Is it morally ok to put a further burden on world resources, potentially making it more difficult for others that are already living, if we have the tools not to? | ||
|
Silver777
United States347 Posts
On April 30 2011 03:35 GetSome wrote: Silver - it seems as though you have taken a very extreme point of view on this issue...more so then even me. If I understand you point of view correctly you are saying that we as humans, because of our "need/desire" for comforts, destroy an untold amount of life on a daily basis and therefore it makes those fighting for life (against abortion) hypocrites? Did I get that right? And if I read your post correctly you don't value human life any greater than the life of the cow we slaughter for food than? Well I do value human life above all other types of life and I do not apologize for it. This mentality drives many decisions I make and I will not apologize for those either. I believe that we could definitely do a hell of a lot better at managing our consumption, how we operate, how we treat the world around us, what we use, why, when, and where, etc...this can really use some improvement. But with that said I would not go as far as to categorize those of us enjoying everything this world has to offer as ignorant or hypocrites. Simply labeling us in one big group shows more ignorance on your part than those you are accusing... It is possible to care for and preserve nature, life, this world, etc and still value humans and our way of life too... All you's are general you's, not directed at you. Labeling everyone in a large group is incorrect as people and groups are different, what I am mostly referring to in the bolded part of your post is the large group of people that fit into that category(which is a large part of the pro-life group in America imo) that simply assume something is bad because of how they were raised, their religion, etc and really don't give any thought to the matter beyond that. As for the the value of human life, I don't really see how its more valuable then other life and from this saying a cat wants to live less then a human makes no sense, all life would prefer to live, its simply the entire goal of everything. Now if you told me that you have issues with killing a cat, a bird, a cow, etc, then the viewpoint of not wanting abortion makes sense, as you have demonstrated that your overall issue isn't with the abortion, but with the killing of life in general. On the other hand when you say, "I have issues with abortion, but killing a deer, buffalo, or anything of the sort is fine", well I don't see where your issue with abortion is and if you simply go on to tell me something like all human life is precious and thats your issue, I just think about how so many people are treated so poorly by other people on a daily basis it seems almost like the exact opposite or a less extreme view that people only value others as long as they are getting value from them. I simply find that the majority of people, like those trying to get this law passed are so contradictory in their views that they are just assuming they are correct and really have no actual reason to support their view. | ||
|
stevejavson
Canada4 Posts
Recently at my University, there was a pro life event. It frustrated me to look at the posters which for the most part, contained either a baby, or a fetus that was almost fully developed so it resembled a baby. In the Earlier stages of development, you can barely differentiate between a human, a chicken and a fish. Yes, fetuses have the potential to become babies, but stating that they ARE babies is like claiming that a pile of scrap metal is a car. The pro life arguments that I mainly see seem to seemed to be based primarily on emotion rather than rationality. I don't really mind laws that dictate a time frame in which abortions can be performed, as arbitrary as they may be; as long as the time frames are fairly reasonably long. (20 weeks seems like enough time to decide). At the moment, we don't have enough data to fruitfully argue what that deadline should be. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On April 30 2011 04:11 Stratos_speAr wrote: Yes, it'll eventually be human, but because of that potential, is it ok to infringe on the rights of someone that is currently a human? What about when it threatens the woman, or it was due to rape/contraceptives not working properly? What if the child is going to have a terrible life because the mother can't provide (and no, adoption isn't a legitimate answer to this)? Is it morally ok to say that the mother must suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, then potentially have the child suffer through a terrible childhood (or even their entire life)? Is it morally ok to put a further burden on world resources, potentially making it more difficult for others that are already living, if we have the tools not to? Should you really be having sex if you can't handle the consequence of a child? | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On April 30 2011 03:25 Euclid wrote: Arbitrary time lines where murder is ok (which differ from region to region) are based on logic and reason? Get real bro. Please don't call it murder, its an oxymoron designed to shock people into becoming pro-life. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. I won't go into whether or not a foetus is a person, since personally I believe that is the only question that the pro-life/pro-choice debate actually hinges on. I've done some research on this, and from what I understand the general consensus among experts is that foetuses can't feel pain until the third trimester, which starts at about 29 weeks. For this reason I don't think its right for them to tell mothers that they may feel pain. If mothers are honestly that concerned about their foetus feeling pain they can anaesthetise the foetus and guarantee that it won't. On April 30 2011 04:27 RoosterSamurai wrote: Should you really be having sex if you can't handle the consequence of a child? Yes, the age that people become emotionally ready to have sex, and emotionally ready to have a baby are different. Its better to use contraception so conception doesn't happen, but people shouldn't be forced to have children they don't want. Its not fair to the mother of the child, I value the rights of a living human over something that can become a human. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 30 2011 04:27 RoosterSamurai wrote: Should you really be having sex if you can't handle the consequence of a child? Absolutely, and this is one of the most worst arguments pro-lifers can bring up. Not only are you emotionally and physically ready to have sex far sooner than you are emotionally, physically, or materially ready to have a child, sex is pretty important for the emotional well being of a human being as well as being an integral part of a healthy romantic relationship. What, are you going to start telling teenagers and young adults that they just can't have a real romantic relationship until they're ready to support a child because they shouldn't be having sex until they're ready for that? Furthermore, with contraceptives out there, people have the reasonable expectation that proper, responsible use of them stops pregnancy, so small errors that are no fault of the user don't automatically mean that they should just have to raise a child like that. Oh, and you answered a grand total of zero of my questions. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
In the Earlier stages of development, you can barely differentiate between a human, a chicken and a fish. You can distinguish a human fetus from a chicken or a fish visually as early as week 3. Here is a fetus at week 8: ![[image loading]](http://www.abortionincanada.ca/images/8%20week%20embryo.JPG) And around week 20: ![[image loading]](http://www.abortionincanada.ca/images/20%20week%20fetus.JPG) | ||
|
Powerpill
United States1692 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On April 30 2011 06:07 Powerpill wrote: Not much difference between aborting a post week 20 baby than smothering a newborn at home and throwing it in the dumpster. Something like this happened about a decade ago in Calgary, Canada. A late-term abortion was performed (I think around week 35) which the baby survived. The mother refused to take the viable child, and he was exposed and permitted to die. Nurses were permitted to coddle and comfort the infant, but not permitted to feed him. As someone mentioned, the vast majority of abortions in Canada are performed in the first two trimesters, but freak cases like these still occasionally happen, and there are no legal instruments in place to stop them. | ||
|
Ir0nClad
United States27 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:07 Courthead wrote: Spent years debating this. Abortion is a complex issue and a morally gray area. Both sides have strong argument and weak ones. I'd say the most popular representatives of each side (women's rights vs religion) are both weak. Morally gray area? A hypothetical situation for you: Lets pretend you are an officer in Nazi Germany during WWII. There is a trench of bodies laying in front of you, with some Jews who are still alive among others that are dead. Your superior tells you to get in a bulldozer and push a mound of dirt over the bodies, burying some alive. If you refuse, your superior would shoot you himself and ask someone else to do it. Would you do it? Lets say you refuse, so your superior, though mad at your insubordination, orders you to shoot those that are still alive first. Would you do it? Are either of those morally gray? If the debate comes down to when life begins, then we have a Minority Report situation: Would the ball have still hit the ground had the detective not stopped it from doing so? One final challenge if you still think it is OK for a woman to abort a baby. Finish this sentence: It's ok to kill a baby in the womb when... User was warned for this post | ||
LostnFound
United States5 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
| ||
| ||
