Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

reply to post by Gorman91

Probable. But not always the case. If there is the chance of just one, then they must all be saved. because you have no way of knowing. It's only fair.

No, its illogical to sacrifice lots of resources to pursue very small chance somewhere, but ignoring that using those same resources differently would increase the chance of wanted event far more.
Even if we have no way of knowing for sure, we can determine probabilities with sufficient accuracy to conclude your behaviour would be suboptimal. In the same way that probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does not prevent us to make accurate statements about larger samples of particles or macroscopic objects, because the probabilities average out, and clear trend emerges.

Please, no colonialist attitudes. Africa has been raped by those that controlled it, preventing such a place. Look to where what I said worked. Specifically, America. Which did all those things.

Initial cause is not important, it is still a fact that decreased quality of life decreases potential and slows down progress, does not matter if the decreased quality of life is due to overpopulation, raping by other countries or alien invasion.
America was exactly the opposite - new "clean slate" country, rich in resources and low in population. Thats why after initial colonisation struggle quality of life rapidly increased. If anything, initial struggles with natives, bandits and wars probably decreased potential speed of progress, not increased. And what really made America world superpower were two world wars in Europe while America enjoyed peace (if your theory was right, increased pressure and decreased quality of life making countries more advanced, Europe will be superpower after 2 wars decreasing quality of life, and America would be underdeveloped compared to it after so many years of peace increasing it).

Lack of basic necessities triggers invention.

Yeah, thats why the most cutting edge particle accelerators and medical research facilities are stationed in Africa... Dont be ridiculous. Lack of basic necessities triggers violence and civilization breakdown, not advanced research. Ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

Please do not mix probability with potential. Things can have a 0 probability, but their potential is still there.

Why should potential that wont be fulfilled be important, or taken as different than no potential at all? The consequence is the same. Justify it with logic, not morality.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I thought you were done with me...and then you came back...and came back again....and now again.

I guess I just find it difficult to let you get the last word...

Look...all of you can shut me up really easily...refute my argument.

No, we can't. It's obvious that no matter what well thought refutiation anybody presents, you come back and say they haven't refuted your argument. You have appointed yourself the judge of your own argument, and have decided you can strike down what anybody else says, regardless how much sense it makes.

Most of you have finally caved and said I am right, that human life does begin at conception. But then you say that is not enough....you use a arbitrary bodily function to mark "life". No one has given a good reason, besides "it's the legal definition"..which basically means you let others think for you.

Caved? None of us have ever stated life doesn't begin at conception. That is definitely where it starts, yes. But that doesn't mean abortion equates to murder. Many of us, see all life as life. You feel human life is more important than all other forms of life. That is where your opinion is coming from, the value you (selectively) place on human life. You're trying to force your values on others. Not gonna work. Many vegans will call you a murderer for eating meat, but you would likely laugh that off as you enjoy a tasty steak or burger. Rightfully so, I know I do. That's their opinion, and yours is yours.

Why does arbitrarily picking one bodily function out of hundres of bodily functions, based on philosophy, a better criteria for life than using a scientific definition from biology???

It doesn't. Why are you still stuck on defining life? Nobody is disputing that it stops the living cells from forming into a child. But early in development it is not a child, it's simply a mass of living cells forming into a child. As MANY people have pointed out to you. I know I know...you're gonna say I haven't refuted your argument.

Mandated vasectomy????

So obviously you support women getting their tubes tied when they have an abortion....right???

Or are we about to see some good ol' hypocrisy???

Well, like I said, all of that is a tough call. In all honesty, I don't support either. I was just trying to come up with some sort of solution to the problem of people who have no means to support children, having several children like stray cats. And, you saying you use science to form your opinions, should be fully aware that it is the drive of a man to create as many children as possible since we've evolved. It used to be the only way to ensure at least one or two of your offspring survived. But now, how many men do you know that have several different children with two, three, even four women? I know of several, and all of them are deadbeat losers. Guess who pays for all those children since theyre too stupid to use a condom? We do. All those mothers and children enjoy free food, money, and healthcare at our expense. Is that cool with you? While responsible people have to work hard, and pay out the @ss for those things?

reply to post by OhZone


I can see everyone is going in circles here...but I will post response to your past reply to me anyways. I hope you can see slightly where this seems to be from your point of view that a woman has more rights since she carries the baby but still the father, having less rights....always has to supply support....even though they both know damn well that sex makes babies.

If he wants a child he should look for another woman.

What about the woman that trick men....and end up pregnant...after lying to that man that they were protected when they really were not? Then the man is left with no choice of having to be a father and pay support...all due to a woman that wanted to 'tie that man' to her own self and to her the rest of her life.

My argument was not about men that were wanting children in the first place. There are plenty of decent men that have sex, not expecting child, but still are willing once they know a offspring was made from having sex with a woman, that they would rather find a way to have it and raise it then abort their offspring.

For men that are secretly wanting to have children and do not tell the woman about this desire and the woman ends up pregnant....still the woman KNOWS the cause and effect from sex....the woman should be protecting herself against all odds of pregnancy no matter if the man is protected or not. For we all know that no form of birth control is not 100%. There are woman just the same that tell men, they are protected....who secretly would love to get pregnant...and the man should always, against all odds, protect himself if he is not wanting a baby even though the woman says she is protected.

It really is not that difficult...both genders know the cause and effect of sex. Both of them, if a unexpected pregnancy occurs, should both have rights in the choice that is going to be made about the baby.

Nice if he can pursuade her to use her body to bear his child and she is willing to go thru this for free. What does she get out of it?

Again...I was not talking about 'before sex'...I was talking about a unexpected pregnancy occurring and then what choices come after they find out there is a offspring growing inside the woman. The woman may not want to have the baby....but if the father wants to raise the baby (for it is HIS offspring just the same) then there should be some rights for the man to say " I dont want to terminate" my offspring. Why should a man have to give into something that is against his moral standards just because the woman who also knew the consequences of having sex....decides she doesnt want a baby. In a way, a woman having a abortion when a mans morals is against abortion...is taking away the right of a man to stick to his morals of being against abortion (let alone, his abortion of his own offspring). I was NOT talking about men that are wanting babies before they ever have sex....I was talking about men that were NOT expecting a baby when they had sex but yet a baby was still made and he decides he should become responsible for that and raise the child to the best of his ability even if the mother chooses to have nothing to do with the baby (and dont forget, this is NOT a choice the man can have...to have nothing to do with a baby).

Yes its the woman's body....which women need to be ALL THE MORE aware of the consequences to SEX for if there ends up being a pregnancy....it effects HER body. Should abortion be a form of birth control? Im not against a persons own rights....but it takes TWO and NOT one to make a baby....so it should involve TWO to decide on the rights to abort.

Again, the man also knows the risks of having sex. Again, if he does not want his offspring to be aborted, he should find another woman to bear it for him. If she is willing to have the child and he is willing to support it, of course he should have a say in its life.

They both know the risks....and Im not talking about a man looking to make a baby and this is why he is having sex. Im talking about unexpected pregnancies and men that are willing to still step up and own up to his responsibility and also claim his rights....to the offspring. If the woman has such rights...so should the man. Im female by the way....so I know all about the effects of carrying a baby but I also am aware that it took 2 to make all three of my children and I consider the males to have a say in the choices of their offspring.

Do this from both sides. One movie you don't want to be pregnant and want to abort. Your boyfriend wants the child. Note your thoughts and feelings. Next be the girl or woman who wants the child and the boyfriend does not. This time you have decided to go full term and keep the baby. Sorry thing is that you really cannot afford to support it. Do expect that the father will help out? Note all your thought and feelings as you are fully immersed in this role. You should try this both from the perspective of a young girl 14 or 15 and a woman in her 20's. Notice any differences when you are 14 to when you are say, 23. Then you might try playing the role of the boy/man in both situations.

Well the over all answer to any situation where there is consensual sex on both sides is they all need to learn and be aware (and some learn the hard way) that having sex makes babies.

I still argue...it takes 2 to make babies...so 2 people should both have rights to make a say in things and both should have to own up and be responsible for their choice of having sex.

Im all for peoples rights to make their own choices. Im not against a couple that decides to abort because they feel unfit to be parents. Im not against young girls that abort because they are not ready and Im not against older woman who abort because they do not want a baby. Im just saying...there should be rights to men that find out there was unexpectedly a offspring made from having sex with a woman and those men want to have the right to own up and raise and care for what was unexpectedly made.

Edit to add...there are plenty of woman that are against abortion and even though they were not expecting to get pregnant they still go through with having the baby. The man may be saying they should get an abortion but the woman says its against her morals or that she does not agree with abortion as a solution. The woman, since it too is her offspring...has the right to say she is going to have the child. The man can not make her have an abortion just because he does not want to support the child or be a father. And that is just 'tough' as you say....to the man that decides a abortion would be the best answer. He will have to own up to being responsible and that is just the way it goes.

My argument again is it takes 2 to make the offspring....and that 2 people should have a say in more ways then 1 of how to handle that. One may not like the others choice....but if one of the people (male or female) feels they want the child and want to raise the baby....they should have that right to do so.

i wonder how many of the anti-abortion crowd on here are men who, due to a lack of ovaries, (among other vital baby makin' parts), can in no way empathize with what it is for a woman to be pregnant, but yet they still feel that they have the right to cast judgment on how another person reacts in a situation that he is biologically incapable of ever experiencing

it's for this reason that i find it pathetic, arrogant and cowardly when men take such strong stances against abortion

what about masturbation, all those sperm, MURDERED! not even given a chance to have a life! jerking off should be illegal too! we should lock up all of these MURDERERS! stop the sperm genocide!

Originally posted by wheresthebody
i wonder how many of the anti-abortion crowd on here are men who, due to a lack of ovaries, (among other vital baby makin' parts), can in no way empathize with what it is for a woman to be pregnant, but yet they still feel that they have the right to cast judgment on how another person reacts in a situation that he is biologically incapable of ever experiencing

it's for this reason that i find it pathetic, arrogant and cowardly when men take such strong stances against abortion

what about masturbation, all those sperm, MURDERED! not even given a chance to have a life! jerking off should be illegal too! we should lock up all of these MURDERERS! stop the sperm genocide!

I am not anti abortion for other people. I am a female and believe in peoples rights to choose. I have 3 kids and none of them were 'planned pregnancies'. But I also believe in a mans right to have a chance to raise a unexpected baby even if the woman doesnt want the baby.

If someone is willing to raise a child...this to me is a better solution then abortion.

Here has been this whole debate in a nutshell with the Pro-Choice (PC) and the Pro-Life (PL):

PL1: Abortion is genocide! Good laaaawd, you are all murderers!

PC1: Abortion is a legal practice and a womans right, dammit.

PL2: Legal or not, it is murder because it kills a human.

PC1: It does not! It kills a bunch of useless cells!

PL2: Well look here at the biological definition. See? Life begins at this point and ends at that point. Period.

PC1: Oh. Well it's still legal.

PC2: You are just a religious psychopath trying to get in my pants!

PL3: Where did he say he's religious?!

PL2: I didn't.

PC2: Sure he is! He's against abortion, isn't he? Only religious nut cases can care about human life!

PL3: I'm not religious, either. I just believe it's our charge and duty to protect the civil liberties of our fellow humans. Geneticists concur that human is human from conception to death. The civil liberties for a new human to live trumps the civil liberties to protect a woman's convenience.

PC: ...

PL: ...

PC3: Did somebody say something?

PL1: Abortion is murder good laaaawd, it's genocide!

PC2: Whatever, you religious nut case.

reply to post by Maslo

Not at all. You have no way of knowing what person will be born whom will cure cancer.



Of course we have. If will be very probably an educated scientist, not uneducated unemployed son of a welfare mom or someone living in a third world slum. That is almost sure

WOW.

I guess we should just kill off all those "poor people"....they have zero chance of having a child that will contribute to society


This is why I like to keep these discussions going....eventually the pro-choice crowd has to increasingly reveal how screwed up their logic is.

So far we have pro-choicers advocating.

- Mandatory vasectomies for males
- Free government abortion clinics in all cities
- Not judging a women who kills her one week old child because she decides she doesn't want it
- And now, our latest gem, that "poor" people can't produce children that will contribute to society.


WOW....way to go pro-choice crowd.

reply to post by Maslo


Using resources as a state to support people and using resources as an organism are two different things. One is the state saying what matters. The other is a human's right to food and water. You are arguing for elitism which, to be frank, is illogical and retarded.

Trends are irrelevant, because 99% of humanity will never account for anything more than peasantry. Yet they have the same right to exist as kings.

Decreased quality of life in industrial nations led to civil revolutions that you are now ta taing away as if it's nothing. The very thing you say is illogical, is the same thing that lead to logic. Therefore, you're illogical.

Again, Africa got screwed by those whom control it. You can't look atone example and ignore another that clearly contradicts it. This is called biased.

Because probability is not potential. because you don't know when someone with no probability will succeed. and because, from a purely evolutionary standpoint, every human as a right to compete its genes in the human race. That alone is pretty much irrefutable. nature, and evolution, likes diversity. Thus it is illogical to kill yourself and lessen your diversity as a species. Weather they have low probability or not is irrelevant. As a human they have the same potential. And therefore the same rights.

reply to post by 27jd

I guess I just find it difficult to let you get the last word...

Or because you see that I make valid points and you have to come try to twist your way out of them.

If not...and I'm just "trolling" like so many of you say...then why come back and respond unless I have made a valid point you have to come and try to debunk...mostly by calling me a troll???

No, we can't. It's obvious that no matter what well thought refutiation anybody presents, you come back and say they haven't refuted your argument. You have appointed yourself the judge of your own argument, and have decided you can strike down what anybody else says, regardless how much sense it makes.

Prove that the starting point of human life is not conception.

Prove that ending a human life at any point in development is not murder.

Caved? None of us have ever stated life doesn't begin at conception.

You may want to re-read the thread.

Many of us, see all life as life. You feel human life is more important than all other forms of life. That is where your opinion is coming from, the value you (selectively) place on human life. You're trying to force your values on others. Not gonna work. Many vegans will call you a murderer for eating meat, but you would likely laugh that off as you enjoy a tasty steak or burger. Rightfully so, I know I do.

You say you see "all life as life" and that you don't place a higher value on human life than all other life.

But you accuse me of being a hypocrite for admitting that human life is more valued to me than other life.

And then you say you love eating animals, even though all life is precious to you


Whether you admit it or not...you do place more value on a human life than you do other life. Or do you eat humans as well as cows? Should be no different right? Life is life...so there should be no problem with eating humans.

It doesn't. Why are you still stuck on defining life?

Ummmm....because that is kind of the whole debate with abortion...where have you been???

pro-choicers like to say "it's not a human life...it's a parasitic clump of cells". So I tend to focus on defining when human life begins.

Nobody is disputing that it stops the living cells from forming into a child. But early in development it is not a child, it's simply a mass of living cells forming into a child.

See...just like that.

No one has answered one of my other questions.

Is a tadpole a frog?

Guess who pays for all those children since theyre too stupid to use a condom? We do. All those mothers and children enjoy free food, money, and healthcare at our expense. Is that cool with you? While responsible people have to work hard, and pay out the @ss for those things?

Yes...that is "cool" with me. See...I like to ensure the society I live in is as good as it can. That includes helping out those with less...and trying to make sure people don't kill each other....or their babies.


At least you have stopped trying to call me a religous extremist or trying to inject other ideas into my arguments...you really liked those strawmen...it took awhile...but you finally stopped after I called you on it over and over. At least I hope you learned something in that sense.

reply to post by MindSpin


Again, read this post and our previous conversation to understand why I am making those points, instead of commiting strawman.

reply to post by Gorman91

Using resources as a state to support people and using resources as an organism are two different things. One is the state saying what matters. The other is a human's right to food and water. You are arguing for elitism which, to be frank, is illogical and retarded.

Elitism is not illogical. Its immoral, but perfectly logical, until you prove that all people contribute to the humanity exactly the same, which is of course nonsense. And I never mentioned any state, why are you bringing it out?

Trends are irrelevant, because 99% of humanity will never account for anything more than peasantry.

Define peasantry. Is peasantry not needed for humanitys survival?

Decreased quality of life in industrial nations led to civil revolutions that you are now ta taing away as if it's nothing. The very thing you say is illogical, is the same thing that lead to logic. Therefore, you're illogical.

What lead to civil revolutions was not decreased but increased quality of life and literacy, allowing the emergence of a new wealthy and educated group in society, in addition to ruling caste, church and peasants.
The later workers revolutions leading to workers rights were caused by opression, but they only removed this opression without any further benefit (and even indirectly resulted in great harm in the form of communism). If there was no opression there would be no need for those revolutions in the first place, so saying opression of workers somehow helped humanity is really absurd.

Again, Africa got screwed by those whom control it. You can't look atone example and ignore another that clearly contradicts it. This is called biased.

Again, Africa got screwed by those whom control it. You can't look atone example and ignore another that clearly contradicts it. This is called biased.

Again, cause does not matter. It has low quality of life, high pressure, so by your logic it should be a superpower in progress levels. It is not.

from a purely evolutionary standpoint, every human as a right to compete its genes in the human race.

The evolution does not say the competition cannot end in the womb.

That alone is pretty much irrefutable. nature, and evolution, likes diversity. Thus it is illogical to kill yourself and lessen your diversity as a species.

The nature likes diversity to a certain extent, and human race is very diverse already. But evolution also surely does not like overpopulation, and evolution does not like contributing members of a species dying of curable diseases. So if you have to choose between lowering a bit the rate of further human diversity increase to prevent overpopulation and cure already contributing humans with ESC therapy, the logical choice is obvious.

reply to post by wheresthebody


You must be an intelligent person, wheresthebody. But this post does not make a point. There is a huge difference between individual sperm cells that cannot do anything without an egg cell to fertilize, and a fetus at an advanced stage of development. I know that you do not really think that men who masturbate are murderers, but saying this sarcastically does not prove a point.

But since you are already here, would you mind answering my question? This is not exactly about abortion, but it is very related to it. If a man does not want the woman to abort, the law still gives that power to abort solely to the woman, correct? But if a woman does not want to abort, but could not afford the child without the man's help, the woman is allowed to "tie" the man to her financially for 18 years. Why can the woman force an unwilling man to support the child (knowing full well that she could not do it herself) if a man who is able to support the child is not allowed to "have a say" in whether or not the woman aborts his offspring?

I have already been told that it is the woman's "bodily integrity" that is more important, but I am not saying that the woman has to abort or that she has to carry the baby to term. I am making the point that the woman can make her own decision with her own intelligence and knowledge of the situation about her own body. However, it seems that some women are raised with the mindset of "My body, my choice, OUR responsibility" (I am sure that this is getting old for some people to read, but no one has really answered this question). If women are allowed to abort the baby without the man's input, then why can the man not absolve himself of financial responsibility?

Also, please do not state that it is either the father or the taxpayers paying for the baby, since I do not care that some of my money is going to help single mothers and their children. So, would you mind answering my question? Thank You.

I was wondering if those who support abortion at any stage could answer this question.

Would it be okay to abort a baby that is due within a week? How about a month? Where is the line drawn for an "acceptable" abortion?

If so, would it be acceptable to kill a newborn, fresh out of the womb?

If this is not acceptable, why is it different from killing a baby that is due within a week? (Note: I am not saying that it is or is not different. I have my own opinion, but I am not bringing it into this post. I am only asking a question.)

Thank You.

reply to post by 44247844


thanks for asking

i feel that the final say is always entirely up to the woman, and if she decides to carry it to term then the child is both parents financial and emotional responsibility, it might not sound fair, but life itself is seldom fair, so for the fathers who dont want to take care of their kids, i say "suck it up buttercup and be a man"

and my point with the sperm was simply addressing the whole "when does life really start" argument, and it most definitely applies in this context

and just for the record, i am a man (i only say it because ive seen term "man hater" thrown around a bit), and i would always stand behind the decisions any woman im with makes regarding her own body

i would also like to throw out there that the very term "pro life" is a horrendous display of academic dishonesty, and those using it are clearly pseudo-intellectuals with a holier than thou complex (not directed at you
44247844)

reply to post by wheresthebody


Thank You for your response, wheresthebody. However, I feel that specifically saying "Suck it up and be a MAN" (emphasis added) seems to imply that a woman is not able to take care of herself or make reasonable decisions on her own. Knowing that the statistics show that the majority of men who are court-ordered to pay child support either do not do it or do not provide the full amount, it would not make sense for a woman to even expect a man to pay child support (although it is mandated by the law, the law clearly does not stop every illegal action).

By the way, pointing out that life is not fair can apply to the woman as well as it can apply to the man. It would not be "fair" to a woman to have to support her child by herself since two people were involved in creating it, but this happens regardless. However, like the case with the man, it is not cause for complaining since the situation could have been avoided by an abortion (or, in the case of the man, by using protection or picking sexual partners more carefully).

Yes, it is important to define when "life" starts in this context, but there are not very many people who would claim that it starts with the sperm or egg. Even MindSpin would not claim this. This brings me to my other question: When do you believe that life starts?

At any rate, I am glad that someone could at least acknowledge that the situation I am pointing out is not "fair" (especially in the US, where everyone is supposed to be "equal"). It seems that other people are ignoring the question. Thanks again.

By the way, what do you mean when you say that the term "pro-life" is a horrendous display of academic dishonesty? I know that there are "pro-life" extremists who go so far as to kill abortionists and bomb abortion clinics, and those are the obvious cases, but how else is the term a case of academic dishonesty? Thank You.

reply to post by wheresthebody

i feel that the final say is always entirely up to the woman, and if she decides to carry it to term then the child is both parents financial and emotional responsibility, it might not sound fair, but life itself is seldom fair, so for the fathers who dont want to take care of their kids, i say "suck it up buttercup and be a man"

At least you admit your thinking isn't fair and is hypocritical.

I guess since life isn't fair...we should just tell women who don't get equal pay..."suck it up buttercup".

and my point with the sperm was simply addressing the whole "when does life really start" argument, and it most definitely applies in this context

Life begins when sperm fertilizes egg....any biology book will tell you this.

Look...I'll show you one.

Developmental Biology, 6th edition by Scott F Gilbert.

Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with genetic potentials derived from both parents. Fertilization accomplishes two separate ends: sex (the combining of genes derived from the two parents) and reproduction (the creation of new organisms). Thus, the first function of fertilization is to transmit genes from parent to offspring, and the second is to initiate in the egg cytoplasm those reactions that permit development to proceed.

i am a man (i only say it because ive seen term "man hater" thrown around a bit), and i would always stand behind the decisions any woman im with makes regarding her own body

You don't have to be a women to be a man hater.

i would also like to throw out there that the very term "pro life" is a horrendous display of academic dishonesty, and those using it are clearly pseudo-intellectuals with a holier than thou complex

Does anti-abortion work? I have no issue with that title.

But I am curious...why is the term pro-life a horrendous display of "academic" dishonesty. Specifically...why "academic"...are we in academia???

reply to post by wheresthebody

i feel that the final say is always entirely up to the woman, and if she decides to carry it to term then the child is both parents financial and emotional responsibility, it might not sound fair, but life itself is seldom fair, so for the fathers who dont want to take care of their kids, i say "suck it up buttercup and be a man"

If it takes 2 to make a baby then can I ask you why the final say is left entirely up to the woman? What if the man decides he would like to have the child because he is against abortions...can the woman not 'suck it up' as you say and have to give birth to the baby if the man is willing to take on full responsibility? At least the woman would have the choice of not being financially responsible after the baby is born which is not a option for the man.

Why are we giving all the say to the woman? I know...the woman is the one to carry the baby. But seriously, is that the sole reason why its up to the woman? I know several men that make a better parent then the female in the family. I know several relationships where the man has a higher moral standard the the woman.

Everyone is willing to tell the man to suck it up....but why are we not telling this also to the ladies?

reply to post by Maslo


Elitism is illogical for a species like man, which evolved to be a social communal species.

Of course all people do not contribute equally I've said this repeatedly. But they all have the same potential to, and therefore the same right to try to or not.

peasantry is not needed for human survival, as humans have reached uncharted waters in evolution. We can do whatever we feel like. But to abuse ourselves and commit species suicide is just plain illogical. A human has value because it is human. because it is kin. No morality here. Simple evolutionary common sense. Passive Eugenics if anything. More species members = greater survival.

Indeed. But now you are oppressing those who cannot even do anything about it. Completely illogical. Also communism is the most logical government system. But humans are illogical, and so fail at it. That does not demand we abandon logic. it means we abandon human nature that confronts with logic.

It is not a superpower because it has not developed yet. From a purely observational standpoint, there is no difference from colonial Africa to Colonial America. We just got here first. That does not mean those not here yet are less. It means that are still learning. Would you say the child whom is slower but more accurate in their works is values less? Perhaps value changes. But being human does not. Being human, they have the same potential. Weather they get there or not is irrelevant to their right to try.


Humanity is not yet overpopulated. overpopulation is a subjective term, assuming that what you say is quality, also a subjective term, is true. Quality is a subjective term, and therefore only in your own viewpoint. As the old saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure. You have no right to judge quality and assume worth. You are not God, and until God proves without a doubt he exists, no one has a right to act like one. We are all human. We all have the same potenital. We all have the same rights.

Originally posted by 44247844
I was wondering if those who support abortion at any stage could answer this question.

Would it be okay to abort a baby that is due within a week? How about a month? Where is the line drawn for an "acceptable" abortion?

If so, would it be acceptable to kill a newborn, fresh out of the womb?

If this is not acceptable, why is it different from killing a baby that is due within a week? (Note: I am not saying that it is or is not different. I have my own opinion, but I am not bringing it into this post. I am only asking a question.)

Thank You.

I would say - a lot depends on personal belief/culture/society.

1. If you believe everything is the will of God - - then you would need to accept that God meant for you to bring any pregnancy to completion. (which would also mean from rape/incest etc). I personally don't understand how the religious can differentiate.

2. Some cultures may keep their birthrate down because of resources. If it is a bad winter and there is a shortage of food supply - - another mouth to feed could doom the entire population. They may promote killing a child after it is born.

3. Producing a male heir in a one child law government such as China. Genetic testing for gender abortion is common. Also girl babies are still abandoned along side of the roads in poor areas.

4. Some believe we are "energy beings" that physical is an experience we choose. That denying an "energy being" from entering the physical world - - is no different then that "energy being" applying for a job - - not getting it - - then simply applies for another position. In this belief the "energy being" may connect with the physical and encourage its growth but not actually join with it until after it is a living physical being.

5. Non-Theist - - - science is science - - - we are a bunch of cells etc - - - denying reproduction affects nothing.

Those are just some variations on pregnancy thoughts. Obviously "One Does Not Fit All". It really annoys me when one person tries to force their belief/ideology on another. It is none of their business.

Of course - - we do live in a Society - - and need to have certain laws that are reasonable. I don't think it can be acceptable in our society to terminate the physical being after it is born. As far as late term abortion - - - my personal feeling is not after being has the ability to live on its own outside the mother. However - - I can not force this thought on someone else.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


i think its just fundamentally wrong to force anyone's will on another persons body