Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If a girl is raped and pregnant, should she keep the baby?

Page 79 of 94 [ 1500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 ... 94  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Nov 2012, 2:44 pm

abacacus wrote:
Plodder wrote:
"abortion isn't murder" is only your opinion. It is an opinion not shared by millions of people worldwide.

A lot of people do not share the flawed logic that "killing a baby once it's outside of the womb is murder, but killing it when it's inside is not." Murder is murder, no matter where the victim happens to be. Location is irrelevant. If you kill a baby outside the womb, it's called infanticide. Murder that takes place inside the womb is referred to abortion. Abortion is therefore just a euphemism for infanticide.

I believe the reason the baby murderers use a euphemism is to ease their consciences and pretend to themselves they aren't committing murder - but they are.

Your argument that "all deaths are the same" would not stand up in a court of law. I am not talking about the physical process of dying; I am talking about the legal description of how that death came about.

If you went out with an axe and murdered somebody with it, I am afraid the judge would not agree with you that deliberate murder is the same thing as death from natural causes. You would be found guilty of murder.

Mothers who suffer a miscarriage and lose their babies due to natural causes are not in the same category as mothers who deliberately murder the babies themselves, and call it "abortion." So no, all deaths are not the same. Some of them happen due to natural causes, and some of them are deliberately brought about by other people.


Your opinion is not supported by evidence, however. Up until a certain point (some 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy I believe, perhaps even later) the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It is not it's own organism, it doesn't have a life to take away yet. One cannot murder something that isn't alive.

Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.


Wrong, by definition the child is not the same organism as the mother, for a very simple reason: The mother and the child do not have the exact same DNA, the child has his/her own unique genetic coding from the moment of conception.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

04 Nov 2012, 2:45 pm

Okay. Sure. So remove it from the womb (mothers body, which by your logic it has no claim over) and leave it be.

It'll die by natural causes and everyone's happy.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Nov 2012, 2:52 pm

abacacus wrote:
Okay. Sure. So remove it from the womb (mothers body, which by your logic it has no claim over) and leave it be.

It'll die by natural causes and everyone's happy.


That would be committing murder... Death by natural causes is where someone dies of natural causes, not someone was deliberately placed in an environment that is completely inhospitable (literally) by another individual...

If you're going to make that kind of an argument, at least make sure that it can't be demolished in the span of 3 minutes...



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

04 Nov 2012, 2:54 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Okay. Sure. So remove it from the womb (mothers body, which by your logic it has no claim over) and leave it be.

It'll die by natural causes and everyone's happy.


That would be committing murder... Death by natural causes is where someone dies of natural causes, not someone was deliberately placed in an environment that is completely inhospitable (literally) by another individual...

If you're going to make that kind of an argument, at least make sure that it can't be demolished in the span of 3 minutes...


Why does it have the right to remain inside it's mothers womb if the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? The womb is not part of it's body, it has no right to be there if it's unwanted.

I'm using your logic here, that the foetus/baby/whatever you wanna call it isn't the same entity as it's mother.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Nov 2012, 3:02 pm

abacacus wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Okay. Sure. So remove it from the womb (mothers body, which by your logic it has no claim over) and leave it be.

It'll die by natural causes and everyone's happy.


That would be committing murder... Death by natural causes is where someone dies of natural causes, not someone was deliberately placed in an environment that is completely inhospitable (literally) by another individual...

If you're going to make that kind of an argument, at least make sure that it can't be demolished in the span of 3 minutes...


Why does it have the right to remain inside it's mothers womb if the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? The womb is not part of it's body, it has no right to be there if it's unwanted.

I'm using your logic here, that the foetus/baby/whatever you wanna call it isn't the same entity as it's mother.


While the womb is part of the mother's body, the child is not a serious threat to the mother's health... If we had the ability to transfer the child to a woman that wants kids, but for whatever reason can't get pregnent, or an artificial womb, I'm all for that, unfortunately we don't so that isn't an option. We see brain activity fairly early on in the pregnency, much sooner than when the lungs start to develop.

The child doesn't begin to potentially pose a health risk until far later in the pregnency and well into the range of the child being able to survive outside of the womb. My sister was a premie, so I actually do have some knowledge about this.



Plodder
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 546

04 Nov 2012, 3:03 pm

abacacus wrote:

Your opinion is not supported by evidence, however. Up until a certain point (some 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy I believe, perhaps even later) the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It is not it's own organism, it doesn't have a life to take away yet. One cannot murder something that isn't alive.

Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.


:?

The fact that the baby cannot survive outside the womb until X weeks doesn't mean it isn't alive.

I cannot survive under water, and a fish cannot survive outside of the ocean, but that doesn't mean the fish and I are not alive. It just means that we cannot survive outside of a certain environment.

Again, your (lack of) logic is sad, and renders your argument invalid.

My opinion is based on reason, and I am entitled to it. There is no need to be rude or insulting just because you do not agree with somebody's opinion. I have not been rude to anybody on this thread, so I don't see why you should be rude to me.

The fact that the pro-abortionists are the ones who tend to be rude shows just what kind of people they are, really. It's kind of sad.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

04 Nov 2012, 3:14 pm

abacacus wrote:
Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.


Quit with the attitude or I'll be stepping on you.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

04 Nov 2012, 3:14 pm

I think that a collectivist society would be the answer. If a woman gets pregnant we all get pregnant and lovingly share her burden.
Her children would be considered our children.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Nov 2012, 3:31 pm

hanyo wrote:
That is not your belief but some people do think there is a difference between killing it before it can survive outside the mother and killing it after it is actually born. Once it's born killing it is unnecessary. You can give it away.


^This^

There is a point when the baby is part of the mother's body, even if it's DNA is different. While it's at that stage, I really think it's the mother's call. It's just a basic respect for a person's control over their own body. Once the baby can survive apart from it's mother, then others can step in and help the baby to survive.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

04 Nov 2012, 3:50 pm

Plodder wrote:
abacacus wrote:

Your opinion is not supported by evidence, however. Up until a certain point (some 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy I believe, perhaps even later) the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It is not it's own organism, it doesn't have a life to take away yet. One cannot murder something that isn't alive.

Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.


:?

The fact that the baby cannot survive outside the womb until X weeks doesn't mean it isn't alive.

I cannot survive under water, and a fish cannot survive outside of the ocean, but that doesn't mean the fish and I are not alive. It just means that we cannot survive outside of a certain environment.

Again, your (lack of) logic is sad, and renders your argument invalid.

My opinion is based on reason, and I am entitled to it. There is no need to be rude or insulting just because you do not agree with somebody's opinion. I have not been rude to anybody on this thread, so I don't see why you should be rude to me.

The fact that the pro-abortionists are the ones who tend to be rude shows just what kind of people they are, really. It's kind of sad.


What I meant by the bolded part is that the baby physically cannot support it's own life in any environment. The mother can support its life within the womb, but the baby itself can't.

Also, my rudeness is the result of dealing with countless people who believe their emotional arguments deserve credibility.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Nov 2012, 3:53 pm

abacacus wrote:
Plodder wrote:
abacacus wrote:

Your opinion is not supported by evidence, however. Up until a certain point (some 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy I believe, perhaps even later) the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It is not it's own organism, it doesn't have a life to take away yet. One cannot murder something that isn't alive.

Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.


:?

The fact that the baby cannot survive outside the womb until X weeks doesn't mean it isn't alive.

I cannot survive under water, and a fish cannot survive outside of the ocean, but that doesn't mean the fish and I are not alive. It just means that we cannot survive outside of a certain environment.

Again, your (lack of) logic is sad, and renders your argument invalid.

My opinion is based on reason, and I am entitled to it. There is no need to be rude or insulting just because you do not agree with somebody's opinion. I have not been rude to anybody on this thread, so I don't see why you should be rude to me.

The fact that the pro-abortionists are the ones who tend to be rude shows just what kind of people they are, really. It's kind of sad.


What I meant by the bolded part is that the baby physically cannot support it's own life in any environment. The mother can support its life within the womb, but the baby itself can't.

Also, my rudeness is the result of dealing with countless people who believe their emotional arguments deserve credibility.


Considering the child is developing while within the womb, seems to me the child can support itself within his/her natural environment during the early stages of development...



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

04 Nov 2012, 4:02 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
While the womb is part of the mother's body, the child is not a serious threat to the mother's health... If we had the ability to transfer the child to a woman that wants kids, but for whatever reason can't get pregnent, or an artificial womb, I'm all for that, unfortunately we don't so that isn't an option. We see brain activity fairly early on in the pregnency, much sooner than when the lungs start to develop.

The child doesn't begin to potentially pose a health risk until far later in the pregnency and well into the range of the child being able to survive outside of the womb. My sister was a premie, so I actually do have some knowledge about this.


Serious threat to its mothers health, maybe not in the majority of cases, I'll grant you that. However, a full term pregnancy is hardly a pleasant thing, and we remove unpleasant things that pose no threat to our health on a regular basis (rashes come to mind). I don't see why we should differentiate just because one unpleasant thing has human DNA. don't why anyone has the right to force anyone else to go through that. In fact, I believe I already asked you what right you had to demand an infant be carried full term by someone else. If I didn't, I ask you that question now.

Oh, and abortion is most definitely an option, regardless of how you feel about it. It always will be as well, whether it's banned or not. Ban it, and it just means abortions will be less safe. Wouldn't it just be deliciously hilarious if a mother had to get an illegal abortion and ended up dying because of people like you? I have to wonder how you'd feel about that happening.

And, as far as premies go, I was one as well, though not *too* severely. Enough to be kept in the hospital for a time.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Nov 2012, 4:07 pm

A mother who decides to kill her unborn baby (before it can survive outside her) may also be acting in the best interests of the child. She may feel that this world is a hostile environment and not suited for her to bring children into. I think this should be her call too.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


AspieRogue

04 Nov 2012, 4:10 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
A mother who decides to kill her unborn baby (before it can survive outside her) may also be acting in the best interests of the child. She may feel that this world is a hostile environment and not suited for her to bring children into. I think this should be her call too.



In certain cases this is true, but in other cases it is not.



iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

04 Nov 2012, 4:14 pm

I have a question for the pro-life people who keep insisting that abortion is murder. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is going to be, but I want to of course verify it.

Given certain conditions, I am in favor for genetic diseases in fetuses, etc., despite the fact in an overwhelming number of cases the purpose of a genetic screen is the consideration of abortion and if it should happen (they cost about $1500 the last time I checked, and I find it strange you wouldn't use that money to care for the child in case it had the disease you fear the most and you were going to bring it to term). The principal reason for this conviction is the brutal and agonizing death a child suffers through when they have Tay-Sachs disease. If you are saying abortion is murder, how can you reconcile or live with yourself knowing that a child with Tay-Sachs is going to be born and die that way? That's what I don't get. If abortion is murder, and in all cases murder, I don't understand how you can live with yourself knowing the child is going to suffer like that while their family sees it happen because you made it that way. There's been no attempt to give exceptions here. It has been all-or-nothing thinking from the group here.

If the child is going to suffer immensely due to lack of finances or available care, I don't see why abortion wouldn't be an option. If that woman is raped, and cannot handle the child and make it safe, why cannot it be aborted? If you say 'put it up for adoption', you're now saying that not only the mother has to bring it to term, but now she has to give it to someone else. Any reasonable person would find that cruel, and you have to wonder about the psyche of the mother as this is happening to her and what you are putting her through.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

04 Nov 2012, 4:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Plodder wrote:
abacacus wrote:

Your opinion is not supported by evidence, however. Up until a certain point (some 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy I believe, perhaps even later) the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It is not it's own organism, it doesn't have a life to take away yet. One cannot murder something that isn't alive.

Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.


:?

The fact that the baby cannot survive outside the womb until X weeks doesn't mean it isn't alive.

I cannot survive under water, and a fish cannot survive outside of the ocean, but that doesn't mean the fish and I are not alive. It just means that we cannot survive outside of a certain environment.

Again, your (lack of) logic is sad, and renders your argument invalid.

My opinion is based on reason, and I am entitled to it. There is no need to be rude or insulting just because you do not agree with somebody's opinion. I have not been rude to anybody on this thread, so I don't see why you should be rude to me.

The fact that the pro-abortionists are the ones who tend to be rude shows just what kind of people they are, really. It's kind of sad.


What I meant by the bolded part is that the baby physically cannot support it's own life in any environment. The mother can support its life within the womb, but the baby itself can't.

Also, my rudeness is the result of dealing with countless people who believe their emotional arguments deserve credibility.


Considering the child is developing while within the womb, seems to me the child can support itself within his/her natural environment during the early stages of development...


The infant isn't supporting itself. The mother is.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.