Originally Posted by hans11
In my uneducated opinion, abortion is up to the mother
Ussually is, however; I don't see how that works. If the case comes down to money where the parents can't afford the baby, yet the mother will not abort.. does the father still have to pay child support even though he'd rather abort?
I don't know, maybe ray has an answer, I would assume yes but I can see how that could lead to problems.
Originally Posted by hans11
whether its ethical or unethical is entirely up to what a person decides is ethical or not
I agree, even though I disagree with abortion. I don't make someone else's problem my own.
Originally Posted by hans11
but its still legal so why argue about it?
Well, the argument is not on whether it should be legal or not, realisticly it will never be illegal, not anytime soon. Regardless, the argument is on the ethics of abortion. People who "mistreat" the use of abortion by using it as a means of birth control, and not as a last resort. This is where morality really comes in to play, even with those who fully support abortion.
Originally Posted by hans11
In my uneducated opinion, abortion is up to the mother, whether its ethical or unethical is entirely up to what a person decides is ethical or not, therefore meaning it is an opinion on that persons behalf on if its ethical. yes it is viewed as harsh, and in a sense murder, but its still legal so why argue about it?
Laws are supposed to be ethical. It's also quite puzzling how the right to life is expressed so vehemently in the declaration of independence, but this is completely disregarded in Roe vs Wade.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
Originally Posted by RayA75
So you say that any form of contraception is unethical because it isn't natural?
...Right
Nah. Preventive form of contraception liek condom or pills are ok. They could harm only us, not a new form of life.
My three sentences wasn't related.
Not ethical - girl made a baby, idk - on the party drunk, or get raped, etc. Ok. "Fuk". But you can say what you want, in my opinion having a baby is one of the most beautiful thing in whole life. Anyways, this girl wants to have an abortion - that's not good. Why won't she give the baby to adoption? Because what? She don't want to have a big stomach, couldn't go to shool? There is more important thing than school... life. But we think only about ourselves... A world full of hypocrites, still more of them, I'm just wondering when we will all kill each other to have better life... In fact, we are on a 'good' way to make it real..
I wonder if anybody here who says 'ok' to abortion could say the same thing about them. I mean, their mother could participate in an abortion... And they wouldn't even exist. Anyone here would say: oh okay, fuk dat I can be nothing? Naaah. No way. You want exist so badly that you will kill your child...
Not natural - understandable. We should listen to nature sometimes..
Not good - that won't be good never ever, and everyone knows that it could be only a "smaller evil", not so necessary at all.
"Human shouldn't decide about other human being." - JayStar, didn't you understand it? How can I be against making a child? Use your brain more..
And that's why abortion is banned... All these subterfuge about "it's life or not a life" are laughable.
Oh, and I don't know if God exist or not, so I'm not a fanatic or something.. I'm agnostic. My religion didn't affect on my opinion.
Last edited by Trewnek; Mar 23, 2012 at 01:05 AM.
Really the cheapest items in the market. Check it http://forum.toribash.com/tori_marke...ername=Trewnek
Originally Posted by Trewnek
Nah. Preventive form of contraception liek condom or pills are ok. They could harm only us, not a new form of life.
My three sentences wasn't related.
Not ethical - girl made a baby, idk - on the party drunk, or get raped, etc. Ok. "Fuk". But you can say what you want, in my opinion having a baby is one of the most beautiful thing in whole life. Anyways, this girl wants to have an abortion - that's not good. Why won't she give the baby to adoption? Because what? She don't want to have a big stomach, couldn't go to shool? There is more important thing than school... life. But we think only about ourselves... A world full of hypocrites, still more of them, I'm just wondering when we will all kill each other to have better life... In fact, we are on a 'good' way to make it real..
I wonder if anybody here who says 'ok' to abortion could say the same thing about them. I mean, their mother could participate in an abortion... And they wouldn't even exist. Anyone here would say: oh okay, fuk dat I can be nothing? Naaah. No way. You want exist so badly that you will kill your child...
Not natural - understandable. We should listen to nature sometimes..
Not good - that won't be good never ever, and everyone knows that it could be only a "smaller evil", not so necessary at all.
And that's why abortion is banned... All these subterfuge about "it's life or not a life" are laughable.
Oh, and I don't know if God exist or not, so I'm not a fanatic or something.. I'm agnostic. My religion didn't affect on my opinion.
Well, it's hard for me to gather much from this... I can't really understand what you were trying to say but I believe you're along the lines of "how can a parent justify life when their own life could have been taken just as easily"? It's a valid argument, however; abortion isn't always used to better the life of the parents. Maybe the child will be born with handicaps that will have lead to death any how, is it worth a child life, only to have them suffer and die anyways?
Originally Posted by Trewnek
"Human shouldn't decide about other human being." - JayStar, didn't you understand it? How can I be against making a child? Use your brain more..
I understand you're against abortion, but if you're against it because you don't believe one human should be able to determine the existence of another, then doesn't the choice to have a baby also determine the existence of another human?
Originally Posted by RayA75
They do not need to have life to have the right to become. They should be endowed with the right to become because through the fetus' processes, we get life. We need the to become to have life. Since we protect life, we must then protect the process by which we get life, the development of the fetus.
You are saying that a fetus has a "right to become," and therefore should have a legally protected status, because it is a necessary and chronologically antecedent part of the process of becoming life. Thus, life is an emergent property of a continuum of states of being.
This seems to make sense at first because all humans with personhood at some point emerged from the state of being a fetus. However, all human persons have other antecedent states as well. Indeed, the matter in our bodies once constituted a fetus, but before that, the matter formed plants, animals, and even farther back in time, stars. We are constantly cycling other forms of matter through our bodies to regenerate cells.
The point is that many kinds of organic matter in the universe could be considered necessary and antecedent to life, and therefore fit your criteria for having a "right to become." Matter that was once a part of stars, plants, other animals, rocks, and so on now forms the basis of our bodies, so according to your rule, all of those things would also have to be legally protected under the "right to become."
But I suspect you wouldn't grant equivalent moral and legal status to both the human fetus and a rock. You might say that the line of continuity between a fetus and a person is more direct than that between a rock and a person, in a couple of ways. First, chronologically - the amount of time between a rock's matter cycling into a person is much longer than for a fetus to become a person. Second, probability - it may be more likely that a particular fetus will become a person than a particular rock - but, spontaneous abortion is not uncommon, so it is not a sure thing that a fetus will in fact become a person. Also, we know that the matter in some rocks will in fact be cycled through human persons eventually, so how could we know which rocks to discriminate against and which to protect in the meantime?
The point is that you have to draw a line somewhere in your "right to become" argument, because statistically, all matter in the universe is possibly in the process of becoming life.
Last edited by Logic; Mar 24, 2012 at 02:14 PM.
