«12. . .2,4622,4632,4642,4652,4662,4672,468. . .2,5142,515»
Sorry to hear you're leaving, if it helps, I think of abortion like this: murder is wrong because it involves the unforced intentional act of taking someone's future away from them no matter how short. These "clumps of cells" have future's, lives, as we know from the fact that you and I were once "clumps of cells," sure, some of these "clumps" may die young or even in the womb, but these are tragedies and unforced, much like someone dying young from a heart attack, a tragedy but not murder as it was natural, no once forced it. So, we know these "clumps of cells" which I'm just going to call future people, have lives ahead of them, same as you or I, and to take that away without being forced (such as through medical emergency or the like) is wrong for the same reason it's wrong to take our future's away. This argument hinges on 1 fact, that these are human lives who have a future and many will live to have full lives well into adulthood, to take an action to end that life, just because of the stage of that life, is wrong. In fact, given how defenseless they are and just how much life they have ahead of them it could be argued abortion is even more egregious. Anyway, not sure if that's helpful, but that's how I think about it, appreciate you hearing us out.
Hard to ban you when you've done nothing wrong though.
Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The RCS, and 6 othersImperii Ecclesia, Coal Belt, New Kiwis, Hrizion, Pax et deus, and Great Northern Isle
We are all still clumps of cells, just larger and more sophisticated clumps!
Culture of Life, Phydios, and Pax et deus
well what if its from incest? or rape or harming the life of a mother? or the mother is very young? or the mother took birth control and used condoms but is still pregnant?
There are varied stances on this in the pro-life movement. For me, eliminating abortions done for socioeconomic reasons is issue #1 and these are difficult debates to have afterwards. But, per my logic above, for me personally, taking someone's life away for the sins of their father isn't just. I would never tell these victims to raise the child, I'm a staunch supporter of increasing efforts and expenditures to fix adoption programs and reform from the ground up the foster system, however, you can't just kill someone for what their father did. With respect, I'm not sure you grasped the heart of my argument, think of a fetus as a future human life, in what instances is it okay to take that away? Why is the future of a fetus weighted differently than a 1 week-old?
Ah yes, the great realm of What If.
What if God is not real? Can we abort humans then? What if we are living in a matrix? What if we are mere alien biomechanical toys? What if...
This does not seem particularly constructive to me. Miku's questions are valid ones and worth answering.
well in my opinion even tho the fetus will be a new human life if that life is detrimental to the mother we cannot in good faith continue the life
That depends on how you define "detrimental." According to the U.S. abortion lobby, 8% to 12% of women who obtain abortions report health problems related to their pregnancies, and only 3% to 4% cite health problems as "their most important reason for having the abortion."
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
I'll assume these self-reports are accurate, and I'll assume the 3% or 4% of abortions are medically necessary. (As for the other abortions, the women reported health problems, but that was not the reason they were obtaining abortions. If an abortion were medically necessary, I assume they would identify that as "their most important reason" and not some other factor.)
That leaves 96% to 97% of abortions that are not medically necessary -- that are performed for reasons other than health.
Phydios, The RCS, and Steel Belt Empire
well not just health what if the mother cant financially support the child? or incest and rape?
In the case of the latter issue, it does not matter how a child is conceived, it should not pay the price. The father should be charged and judged harshly, and have money set aside for the child.
Regarding economic reasons, there's always adoption, there's a long list of couples looking for children. There are also crisis pregnancy centres, churches, family members, and so on, that may or are willing to provide financial support. This is all assuming there is no father in the picture. If there is one, he should be able to support a modest budget, that will be enough to get buy, if he works on his own and the woman receives benefits.
A lot of this wouldn't be an issue if babies were conceived in wedlock.
what if the mother was idk maybe 18 and used a condom and birth control but it still didnt work? and imo adoption isnt very good because the baby could grow up and resent the parent
I would just like to inform you all that I will be taking a break from technology for a little while, a may be back in a week, I may be back in a month, but I will hopefully be back. I wish you all well, and I will see you someday.
Culture of Life, New Dolgaria, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and 5 othersImperii Ecclesia, Coal Belt, New Kiwis, Liberfreedomia, and Hrizion
As the article to which I linked notes, rape used to be the reason for about 1% of abortions. Since the debut of emergency contraceptives in the 1990s, rape is now the reason for "<0.5" percent of abortions. In other words, it rounds down to zero.
It happens, but it's more of a straw man nowadays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You're shifting the goalposts again. Earlier, you asked whether I thought an abortion should be allowed when continuation of the pregnancy would be "detrimental to the mother." I conceded that, when pregnancy is truly detrimental (cases of medical necessity), I would not object. Now, you're arguing about a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with "detriment." Pregnancy is only a burden or inconvenience in your latest examples.
The idea that we should kill a small child because the child "could grow up and resent the parent" is nonsensical. If you polled people who resent their parents (a fairly sizeable segment of the population, I imagine), I'm sure that most would rather be alive than dead. Resentment toward one's parents is not so bad that people would prefer to be dead than resentful.
As i said earlier, too much 'what ifs', this guy doesnt read your replies or sources where you(already) answered his questions...
Believe me Fam, I’m young too and I understand more, abortion is murder. It kills unborn babies. Don’t support abortion.
Coal Belt, New Kiwis, and Fallen Babylon
Now that right there is what I would call common sense, at least at my standards.
(Based bro)
Honestly, if the government had common sense, this country wouldn't be a big mess like it is now.
Damn bro is speaking fax
well the "babies" "killed" my abortion arent alive so
You've said this before, and you received scientific definitions of "life" in return. What definition do you use that excludes a fetus?
Since my nation is coal belt, should i invest in the mining industry? Im asking this because that mean i will ruin environment, and that will chainlink to desertification, less tourism, eco-beauty and overall health.
i say that at the first breath the baby is alive
«12. . .2,4622,4632,4642,4652,4662,4672,468. . .2,5142,515»
Advertisement
