2nd issue of the motion interactive "choose next panel" comic3.95 / 5.00 18,330 Views
Stealth goes in every field AGAIN!3.88 / 5.00 12,829 Views
Kill a shitload of ninjas, fair enough?3.87 / 5.00 36,084 Views
At 12/14/11 11:32 AM, Xyphon202 wrote:At 12/13/11 02:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: What role did the child play in the rape? And, to support abortion seems strange to me (aside from my beliefs) - when does it cease to be abortion, and become murder?Okay let's see.
First of all, the child will be a constant reminder to the mother that she was raped.
I've addressed this roughly a hundred times. Basically, my perception of life is more important than the chance of temporary psychological issues. Also, I've never really heard about this happening - but, I have heard plenty of cases where the mother is fine and the child grows up to be a healthy adult. If you want more explanation, feel free to browse the first four pages.
Secondly, what if the girl is like, 15 or something, and is raped? What if she doesn't have a well paying job? Well hey, what if she JUST DOESN'T WANT A FUCKING KID? It's not even HER fault that she's pregnant, but now she has to carry the baby of a RAPIST?
I would say adoption is a much better option. Why punish two individuals for the rapists actions? No, it's not her fault, but killing a baby? Come on. There are alternatives. By the way, caps-lock does not strengthen your argument.
child has to grow up with some sick fuck rapist as its father.
You must be kidding. Maybe I shouldn't have replied to this post at all.
Saying that women SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to have an abortion of they're raped is pretty fucking disgusting. I bet you wouldn't say that if you were a young girl who was raped.
Are you a young girl who was raped? If so, I can respect the emotion - but not the action. Murder is murder; I don't care what size the person is or how old they are. You are suggesting that a "murder-license" can (should) be given. And, this is not right to me.
You have permanently made me disgusted with you. Congratulations.
Permanently disgusted? Okay.
At 12/14/11 11:48 AM, Natick wrote: I'm sorry but your opinion on a rape child is invalid. If you seriously think that depression and psychological problems aren't sufficient reasons to have an abortion simply because you have never gone through that then please keep in mind that is a situation that you would actually have to go through to know what those people truly feel like. Otherwise, it's speaking about something that you know little to nothing about and are better off not knowing.
I know a lot about personal depression. However, I do not feel that this is a factor in determining whether or not killing an innocent child is right or wrong. Even if I had no background in depression/psychological anguish, the quality of life would not change - and, I would rather trust a constant, definite, and irreplaceable valuable in this physical world. Please don't take this to mean I have no compassion for those who must live with their past every day. I believe we should help them as much as possible and be there for them in hard times without resorting to such barbaric, irresponsible means.
At 12/14/11 11:55 AM, Xyphon202 wrote:At 12/14/11 11:41 AM, EmmaVolt wrote: I've addressed this roughly a hundred times.Okay. Except the child isn't conscious and isn't technically a baby. But okay.
Then, I have no idea what you define as a baby or consciousness, considering both are based on the growth process and not an instantaneous occurrence.
I would say adoption is a much better option.But the women still has to carry what she may think of as demon spawn for 9 months. I doubt anyone wants to carry the child of a rapist. Then after she finally has the baby she has to give it up. What if she doesn't want to have to go through that.
Ignoring the "may" and "doubt" parts, my point about adoption was a suggestion - considering you are hellbent on proving to me that living with this child is a fate (literally) worse than death. This isn't an argument.
Oh yeah, this is a free country.
So, I want to go out and shoot up Columbine again. Why not? It's a free country, after all.
You must be kidding. Maybe I shouldn't have replied to this post at all.How am I kidding. Would you like to grow up knowing your father is a rapist?
You would kill a person based on a prediction of a (subjectively based) quality of life? Perhaps if it was such a big deal, they would commit suicide. For the sake of the argument, wouldn't allowing them to make the decision to end their life be smarter than ending it for them when you have no idea of how they will react?
Well, I guess the mom would never tell the kid. I guess he can just grow up knowing nothing about his father.
Okay this argument is beginning to decay into specific hypotheticals. Let's try to argue from a broader standpoint instead of these.
I really don't understand. Did you expect to make this thread and have everyone agree with you? I'm sure you are well aware that 95% of the Newgrounds BBS population is pro-choice. Or at least, 95% of the people who would respond to your thread are.
No, that is why I made the thread. I was curious about the opinions on this matter, and how much people have thought about it in-depth. I have found that many people only scratch the surface when making such a huge decision. And, no, I am not aware of the general standpoint of abortion on this site. Keep in mind I am not actually asking if abortion should be allowed - but, at what point it becomes murder. Few have actually addressed this question (which is fine).
To (most of) us, it is not murder, because the baby is not conscious and isn't technically a baby yet. To you, it is. But your opinions are never going to change ours and most of us don't even remotely agree with you. So why did you make this thread knowing you would argue about something and never get your point across?
I have a feeling you do not understand the concept of consciousness. I understand that. What is the purpose of forums, exactly, but to discuss? I am getting my point across. I am not attempting to impose my beliefs - instead, I ask questions, and dissect people's opinions to see just how passionate they are about killing children.
This is akin to RacistBassist's "tipping" threads. It's pointless.
Everything we do on BBS is pointless. I don't see how this makes the issue less important. Moreover, I am willing to argue all day if it could potentially save lives. Stop being so mordantly narrow-minded. If you think this is oh, so useless and a waste of time, go elsewhere - those of us who take this seriously will not miss your shallow insight.
Permanently disgusted? Okay.Yes, because you have the audacity to tell other people how to live their lives and tell them they are wrong for having an abortion.
Please show me where I am telling people how to live their lives. I am not discussing legalities. If you had read through my posts, you would have understood this.
At 12/14/11 12:09 PM, Natick wrote:At 12/14/11 12:00 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:Something that hasn't even born yet isn't innocent nor is it guilty of anything.
How can one be neither innocent nor guilty? I have never heard this argument before; could you elaborate?
Even if I had no background in depression/psychological anguish, the quality of life would not change - and, I would rather trust a constant, definite, and irreplaceable valuable in this physical world.I don't want to wish rape on you or anyone else but that's what it would take to truly understand what they are going through and how they would justify killing an unborn fetus over a traumatic experience. Until any of us go through that horrible experience, we know fuck all.
If this scenario seriously happened to me, I would probably have an abortion despite my passionate beliefs - I would be terrified. But, that doesn't make it right; and I would inevitably feel worse about rejecting my morals and killing a child for the rest of my life.
Oh good. You're not a republican XD
Nope, I'm an Emma.
"Anyone who makes a decision before they are given an issue is a fucking tool." - Chris Rock
Regardless of my stance on subjects like these, or whether or not I agree or disagree with everything everyone has posted in this topic, I do have to agree that I enjoy that EmmaVolt seems to frequently post topics that get people into such an involved discussion. It's refreshing to see topics that involve more thought than merely 'What do you prefer, Mcdonalds or Burger King?' topics.
Even if a bunch of people agree or disagree, it's nice that people can discuss topics like these without slinging immense amounts of mud -- I think the more people talk about things that make some uncomfortable, we are already stepping in the right direction towards solving bigger problems in the world, and having other discussions that may or may not be uncomfortable initially.
EmmaVolt, I hope you keep making threads like these even though others keep insulting your topics and posts!
Boop boop beep boop.
At 12/14/11 12:53 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: Your last reply to me, whether you meant to or not, was basically filled with comments generally saying I am stupid. I don't understand consciousness, I can't form an argument, etc, etc.
No, I never said you are stupid - merely implied that your comments suggested that your understanding of child development is minimal, and that your points were bad arguments.
I don't think of them as children, I think of them as fetuses. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with killing them.
Fair. I am asking why they are not children.
That is really all that this argument really encompasses: Do you think fetuses are still children or not?
For the most part, yes. But, you haven't addressed this really besides the consciousness issue - which I explained, and you have yet to rebut (if you are planning to). If this is as far as our argument goes, that's fine, and I can respect your opinion however distorted it may be.
Then, all you can get down to is completely subjective and narrow-minded arguments(which you accused me of using). Insulting someone else for using hypotheticals and narrow-minded arguments in a debate that requires you to do so is ridiculous.
I'm not sure what part about my arguments have been narrow-minded considering I have not dismissed any opinions, merely questioned them further with my own knowledge of the subject. I neither insulted you, nor acted impolitely (I assumed) with my responses when I requested that we refrained from using specific hypotheticals that do not make for a good debate. It is most certainly not required to say "the mother will never tell the child about his father" when this is such a baseless, and improper assumption on your part. I hope this has been clarified.
We must be narrow-minded to a certain degree because there are only 2 standpoints, this argument is generally very black and white:
Well I'm glad you agree, but it is possible and recommended to listen to, and understand the other side of the argument.
As we do not punish people for being raped by forcing them to have a child, you can not punish people for having unprotected sex by forcing them to have a child.
I disagree that children are a punishment, but okay.
Let's agree to disagree.
At 12/14/11 01:12 PM, BananasFoster wrote:EmmaVolt, I hope you keep making threads like these even though others keep insulting your topics and posts!
Thanks! I realize some people may be overly-passionate for either side, but I am glad that others take the issue more maturely.
At 12/14/11 02:21 PM, Natick wrote:At 12/14/11 12:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:I didn't that one through very well. I'll try again: I think it is a bit of a stretch to call an unborn child innocent. They aren't guilty but what have they done that makes them innocent?Something that hasn't even born yet isn't innocent nor is it guilty of anything.
Do you hold a "guilty until proven innocent" stance? I am unable to wrap my mind around doing something to make you innocent in an issue. The child has done nothing to deserve death - and is therefore innocent, simple as that. What has the child done that you would call him guilty?
You got my sig wrong but I looked at yours and will now gladly conclude my replies to this thread."Anyone who makes a decision before they are given an issue is a fucking tool." - Chris Rock
Oh, I didn't even know that was your signature! That's a huge coincidence. I believe mine is more accurate, though.
At 12/14/11 03:38 PM, Natick wrote:At 12/14/11 03:28 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: What has the child done that you would call him guilty?To use such terms as "innocent" just implie to me that he's already responsible for something before birth. To me, he's neither innocent nor guilty. He simply is.
Oh, okay. Well, I mean innocent as in the situation was not caused or accelerated by the child - and is therefore innocent in the pregnancy regardless of how he got there.
As for my stance, I believe that no one is potentially safe and we are all contributing to each other's destruction and we don't even know it but in a court case, I'll try to say "innocent until proven guilty". Not all the time though.
But, we have a responsibility to protect negative-rights. That is, we cannot take from others - this includes life, and especially the life of a defenseless child.
I was looking at the Super Villian part :3Haha.
So, i'm not quite understanding these "quality of life arguments" which justify abortion because the child would have a lesser quality since he/she is no longer wanted by anyone? Why is it justifiable in that case but not in the case of someone who becomes retarded or severely handicapped at birth or even later on in life? Surely that is a much worse quality of life? If "quality of life" is the judge then why stop at a parent(s) who does not want their kid, kill everyone who has a crappy life...
At 12/14/11 05:54 PM, Natick wrote:At 12/14/11 05:35 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: But, we have a responsibility to protect negative-rights. That is, we cannot take from others - this includes life, and especially the life of a defenseless child.Sanctity of life? It's not as if we can ask the fetus if wants to be born and there's no sense in forcing the woman to have the child because in the end, it's none of our business unless this happened to us or someone close to us. It's pointless to make a woman have a child she doesn't want simply over a naive concept that life is sacred.
Exactly. The fetus didn't ask to come into existence - none of us had. It doesn't make sense that you would kill this baby based on an event it played no part in. The fetus simply existed in an unfortunate circumstance. It had nothing to do with it. This is why I believe supporting abortion should mean supporting it even if it's just a "ah, I changed my mind" deal - or opposing it no matter what. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing. Also, I do not think the concept of a precious life is naive at all. This sanctity is what keeps humanity from extinction. Why is murder a crime? When does abortion become murder?
Also, and I know I'm the 5 billionth person to say this, but aren't there enough of us already?
In what sense? You mean enough of us to consume every last resource of this Earth to fuel our Cadillacs and 3 sets of TV's? No. The Earth is nowhere near it's responsible capacity. Plus, there is room for researching colonization of other planets (just throwing this out there).
At 12/14/11 06:00 PM, Limelion wrote: If "quality of life" is the judge then why stop at a parent(s) who does not want their kid, kill everyone who has a crappy life...
I agree completely. This is the issue I'd like people to address. "When does it become wrong (murder)?"
At 12/14/11 06:00 PM, Limelion wrote: Why is it justifiable in that case but not in the case of someone who becomes retarded or severely handicapped at birth or even later on in life?
That is a much more justifiable reason, yes.
If "quality of life" is the judge then why stop at a parent(s) who does not want their kid, kill everyone who has a crappy life...
They shouldn't be able to abort for no good reason, but there are reasons, such as the ones you listed above, that could justify it. The key word for most people seems to be 'kill': most of the people who are pro-'life' seem to be so because they equate abortion with murder. At least, that's how it looks to me.
At 12/14/11 06:32 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:At 12/14/11 06:14 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: In what sense?No matter what, it is only a matter of time. Oil cannot be reused, it is not a cycle. If we continue at our current rate, we WILL run out of oil. However, there ARE other forms of energy that can be used in a cycle(hydroelectric, for example), that would work much more efficiently if we had a smaller population. At our current population, we are forced to use unrenewable energy. You cannot argue this simple fact.
Which is why we should not continue at our current rate. Simple. Wouldn't slowing down our completely needless production for extravagant non-disposables be a more civilized option than genocide? Our efforts should be going into the development of alternative energy sources rather than abusing one that will not be replenished any time soon. I see no reason why abortion should be the primary option when faced with the exaggerated issue of overpopulation. Killing people off so that we can have a new iPod every year is horrifically evil.
And colonization of other planets is not going to happen for a LONG time.
I was merely using this as an example for alternatives. If we put more effort into this endeavor it could be possible well before we are fighting for food.
At 12/13/11 02:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Firstly, how many of you support abortion?
I do, for any reason. The only time where the mother should not be given a choice is when they repeatedly "accidentally" get pregnant and are having abortions as if it were instead of using birth control.
Firstly, there is no god. When it comes down to ethical reasons to disallow abortions, I don't think it's robbing anyone of life so long as they never became conscious. There's no suffering, it's just as if the fetus never existed in the first place. Having a severely deformed / mentally disabled baby causes infinitely more suffering than aborting it. Also, there are way too many fucking people, and now they're all let to survive so the quality of genetics is definitely deteriorating.
With that answer, please tell me at what point a human becomes a person.
When they become conscious. Saying killing a fetus is murder is like saying killing a tree is murder (in a literal sense).
At what point is the physical human being given the right to life - and by stealing it, you are a murderer?
When they become conscious.
I think abortion is wrong.
IT'S GONNA RAIN!
I love getting medals. Total medal points: 31,470
I Never log off.
At 12/14/11 06:58 PM, polles wrote:At 12/13/11 02:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Why?Firstly, there is no god.
This is entirely subjective from our point of view; but fine. Within this premise:
When it comes down to ethical reasons to disallow abortions, I don't think it's robbing anyone of life so long as they never became conscious. There's no suffering, it's just as if the fetus never existed in the first place.
Okay. At what point does the child "become" conscious given that consciousness is a developing process? Also, I do not consider lack of suffering a justifiable reason for murder. Would you allow the killing of someone who is not conscious, and is completely is relying on medical assistance? With your philosophy, ending their life would not be murder under any circumstance.
Having a severely deformed / mentally disabled baby causes infinitely more suffering than aborting it.
"Better to have died young, but better yet to have never been born at all." I suppose.
This applies to all of us. Quality of life is most certainly not objective - it is up to each of us to determine what we are able/willing to withstand. You are making the ultimate decision for the child whom you have no idea of what their life will be like.
Also, there are way too many fucking people,
No there's not - unless you live in a third-world. Population is stagnating in the first-worlds, or declining gradually. Also, the overpopulation argument is centered around selfishness; which is okay as long as you understand this. This can be fixed without genocidal methods.
With that answer, please tell me at what point a human becomes a person.When they become conscious. Saying killing a fetus is murder is like saying killing a tree is murder (in a literal sense).
Your parallel is strange, but okay. Fair answer (given my statements above).
What about when you rape someone, then its totally legal to kill them then cut open their womb. Right?
"If music be the food of love, play on.'~Spongebob
At 12/14/11 11:23 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:
I have heard something like this analogy in my own philosophy class; and, I would still say their life is your responsibility because you are not letting the other die, you are killing by disconnecting yourself.
Then of course there is that whole other argument about killing vs letting die which makes itself relevant.
Unless the connection itself is killing or will kill you, you should not disconnect yourself despite the dire situation.
While I disagree, morally I see where you're coming from.
However, if there were an appropriate way to keep the fetus alive after removal from the mother, I would permit this in rape scenarios (not abortion).
In an ideal world it would be this way.
I would also argue with the claim that their right to life does not overpower your right to your body. Life is prioritized over all rights.
Understandably so. While I disagree I can understand why/how people view life as our most fundamental right. I still feel that another beings right to life doesn't necessarily outweigh your right to your body and by extension your own life in a sense.
Since you say life is prioritized over all rights, what is it that you think instills one with a right to life? What criteria must an entity meet to gain this right?
At 12/14/11 06:58 PM, polles wrote:
Firstly, there is no god. When it comes down to ethical reasons to disallow abortions, I don't think it's robbing anyone of life so long as they never became conscious. There's no suffering, it's just as if the fetus never existed in the first place.
There is no god, quite an arrogant statement. How do you know when the fetus becomes conscious and suffers?
Also, the world is not over populated.
At 12/14/11 08:23 PM, Emarius wrote:At 12/14/11 11:23 AM, EmmaVolt wrote: I have heard something like this analogy in my own philosophy class; and, I would still say their life is your responsibility because you are not letting the other die, you are killing by disconnecting yourself.Then of course there is that whole other argument about killing vs letting die which makes itself relevant.
Yeah, I'm glad I already had this point of view before my course this fall. The "letting die" part would have been a mind-fuck.
Unless the connection itself is killing or will kill you, you should not disconnect yourself despite the dire situation.While I disagree, morally I see where you're coming from.
Okay, no problem. Thanks for listening!
Since you say life is prioritized over all rights, what is it that you think instills one with a right to life? What criteria must an entity meet to gain this right?
I believe the right to life is exclusively humans', based on (here we go) the concept of the spirit/soul. I believe humans are unique and superior to all forms of life in that we were created specially. So, life, to me, is the most precious thing one could possess - meaning the sacrifice of it is the greatest possible. Life is irreplaceable, and a mysterious aspect of the physical universe. And, I consider it ignorant and shallow to dispose of it so willingly for material possessions (with the overpopulation argument).
Hopefully, this debate will not become religious though. This is simply my unchanging, unfalsifiable opinion on the matter!
At 12/14/11 08:26 PM, Natick wrote:At 12/14/11 06:14 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: When does abortion become murder?How do you kill something that hasn't been born yet?
Birth does not classify something as alive. You could technically "kill" the being within the first moments of conception. Unless, you are asking if you can murder something that hasn't been born yet; in which case, I would say, yes - murder being defined as the unjustified or non-defensive taking of a person's life. This is why we must define personhood before calling abortion a murder. I am asking at what point you believe the child becomes a person, and is given the right to life.
I'm gonna ride the George Carlin train a bit here which Mismo did me the kind favor of linking his video on the first page and I highly recommend you check it out. At the end he questions the sanctity of life by asking, "If everything that ever lived is dead and everything that is alive is gonna die then where does the sacred part come in?"
Well, something can be sacred/valuable and perishable at the same time (such as oil, gems, money). I consider life infinitely more valuable than any amount of oil, gems, and money combined. Plus, it isn't always merely the existence of life, but the way this life lived.
In what sense? You mean enough of us to consume every last resource of this Earth to fuel our Cadillacs and 3 sets of TV's? No. The Earth is nowhere near it's responsible capacity. Plus, there is room for researching colonization of other planets (just throwing this out there).In terms of resources, I can't really say as I haven't fully studied those current conditions but there's 7 billion of us and another child is born every 8 seconds. That's about 10,800 kids born every day. I think we can more than manage losing a few that haven't been born here and there. It really shouldn't be this big of a deal.
Resource-wise, we consume an exponentially larger amount than is necessary (consider the food you leave on your plate, the time you spend watching TV and on the computer [oops], and our meaningless endeavors). The overpopulation problem is really a consumption problem. Our resources should be spent finding alternatives - such as space exploration (eventually), renewable energy sources (perhaps improving nuclear), and medical feats. Killing people to fuel our greed is disgustingly medieval and sounds a bit too much like the 20th century genocides.
At 12/14/11 11:16 PM, Natick wrote: Alright. I say we continue this chat of our over the pms tommorow, my good friend.
good luck to both of us trying to ocme to a solid conclusion any time soon.
Challenge accepted, comrade. I await your return!
Hi, if I want to take a knife and cut out my liver then I WILL CUT MY FUCKING LIVER OUT! If I sign a piece of legal documentation and pay for someone to cut out my liver, then by all means they will do so. My liver is as much as a living being as fetus is. A woman owns her body, she can do whatever she wants with it or have others do whatever she wants with it.
When born it is life, before that point its part of the woman and its entirely her choice.
At 12/14/11 11:27 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: My liver is as much as a living being as fetus is. A woman owns her body, she can do whatever she wants with it or have others do whatever she wants with it.
I never have understood why the "woman's body" argument seems to be so successful, when two different body's are involved. If the child would be better off by killing the mother, would that be acceptable? Why not? The child is not an organ of the mother, as the mother is not an organ of the child. Why is the woman given the right to murder - and when does it become murder? Non-rape scenarios usually just boil down to selfishness (not all, but most).
When born it is life, before that point its part of the woman and its entirely her choice.
It is "life" at conception. And, I do not see how you could say birth dictates murder when there are many pre-mature births every year.
At 12/15/11 01:14 PM, Natick wrote: I hope you passed on exam.
But mainly what I think is that unless it were a relative or a close friend, a woman's choice to have abortion is hers and hers alone. In all the days this thread has been going on, there's probably been 23000 abortions worldwide, most of which were probably illegal.
I agree that the choice should be made by the mother alone. Keep in mind I am not trying to make abortion illegal - merely explaining why I believe the decision to abort is wrong and on level with murder. I am not well-rounded enough in the legal system, with causes and effects of each law, to be able to say whether or not abortion should be allowed. Perhaps there should be some sort of heavy fine? Perhaps jail time (except in rape scenarios)? All I know is: murder is currently illegal to protect the right of persons' lives. Why? To what degree?
Did any of those affect you or me?
Not directly, but there is no way to comprehend the repercussions from killing babies (especially with females, as this eliminates entire generations). Let me be cliche for a moment when I say that the child you kill may have solved the debt crisis; or, maybe the child's child, or that child's child. We will never know either way - which is why I believe the child himself should be the dictator of his life.
If some stranger goes into an abortion clinic and a radical pro-life protestors tries to stop them (Not that that's what comparing you to) , I'd like to think what his/her response would be when asked, "Is that your kid? Did you impregnate her? And if she has it, are you going to care for it? Would you even care to know it's name?" Also, this late in our debate, I would like to recommend the documentary, "Lake of Fire". Perfect watch if you're really concerned about this "issue", IMO.
I do not believe a prediction on the (subjective) quality of life should be a reason for a permanent solution. And, thanks for the recommendation - I will check it out!
Oh yeah, I don't know why I can't save "Waiting For The Apocalpyse" to my desktop. Must be a glitch or harsh administrative privileges.
It's probably copyrighted. Not very many works of hers are allowed to be downloaded. Or, maybe it was a glitch - who knows.
Who gives a shit? We let the state murder adult humans, and go to other countries to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children. How is that any worse than stopping a small clump of cells from cloning?
A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.
At 12/15/11 02:55 PM, camobch0 wrote: Who gives a shit? We let the state murder adult humans, and go to other countries to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children.
So, because we have another devastating habit, we should do nothing, and ignore both? I don't understand your reasoning.
At 12/15/11 03:03 PM, Natick wrote:At 12/15/11 02:47 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I agree that the choice should be made by the mother alone. Keep in mind I am not trying to make abortion illegal - merely explaining why I believe the decision to abort is wrong and on level with murder.I was looking at WikiAnswers statistics so sorry if I came off that way. I know you're trying to outlaw it here. However, I disagree that we should fine the woman unless she was simply doing it for selfish reasons and even then as I've said, it's her decision.
Well, yeah. Like I said, I'm not the legal type to argue that way, haha. Just making suggestions.
Hypothetically speaking, a law or fine would probably violate come Constitutional rights and radical feminist bloggers would have a fucking field day, lol.
No, I can't see these (my suggestions) as Constitutional violations. People would certainly complain, but you can be fined for speeding on the interstate - which "goes against" your rights. Allow the decision, but threaten disciplinary action as a deterrent. Also, I would love to see more radical feminist arguments! They can be incredibly amusing; it makes me wonder if it's just one big joke (with some of them). Although I agree with the fundamentals of the (original) feminist movement, I do not believe it is within a woman's right to murder the unborn.
Not directly, but there is no way to comprehend the repercussions from killing babies (especially with females, as this eliminates entire generations).I've always thought that placing fate on a fetus was a little much. Of course, we'll never know but it certainly wouldn't happen if they were that intelligent yet were born into a family that looked at them with disdain. Allow me to quote Carlin once again, "They say life begans at conception and I say life began thousand of years ago and it's a continuous process." I simply can't see what all the worry is about.
The same goes for supporting abortion. Are you not placing a fate on the fetus by determining whether or not its life will be good (under your personal definition of the word)? And, killing the child is much more damaging than simply allowing it to live and possibly not living up to your standards. Let the child (future adult) decide whether or not their life fits the criteria of "good". I know plenty of people who have grown up in worst-case scenarios, and have turned out just fine - in my eyes, but more importantly, theirs. The quality of life argument is severely crippled by the overwhelming cases of successful adults raised in any family who has gone through hardship.
Moreover, the Western world's perspective of a good life is extremely biased. Children in Jamaica, Russia, and even Iran may have what we call "horrible lives" - but, for some reason, these countries keep on going. Why? Because the children are able to grow up under these conditions. The human mind is stronger than we give it credit for. And, being a middle-class American, even in today's "hard times", places you in the top 1% of the world. I do not consider food and shelter, proportionately, in any sense to be worse than death. Many people seem to overlook our place on Earth. Execution based on a distorted prediction of a not-so-bad future is exponentially worse than a witch-trial.
At 12/13/11 02:46 PM, SaltshakerClock wrote:At 12/13/11 02:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: What role did the child play in the rape?The child was not involved in the rape but it is a direct product of the rape's occurrence and forever will remind the mother of what had happened. On top of that, most of the time the child is not wanted by either parties, so why put it through a horrible life like that?
That is the wisest thing I have ever heard about it.
It's wise because it's true.
If you keep the child it's gonna have a real hard life for it is not wanted and therefore not loved.
Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all childeren