|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:56 am
mr_zoot the notion of a soul is religo-philosophical nonsense that we use to create obedience to doctrine via threats to its disposition. The thing that makes humans human is agency. This actually does not even exist in a newborn yet but at the point where the offspring is capable of living outside it's host, we can be relatively certain it will happen. before this point, the point where offspring can live outside the host, it is just potential. I have to disagree with you on that point and I don't like the fact that it sounds like your suggesting the divine daughters and the priesthood are merely using the notion of having a soul to control us. stare Actually it all depends on your views but ill leave things where they are because this isn't a religious debate. Correct.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:15 am
i think its wrong you guy are responsible for your actions you should take care of the baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wistful Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:06 pm
So you would condemn the mother to a life of regrets and the child to a life where he or she isnt wanted?
Or what if the mother was going to die from child birth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:32 pm
I agree. Forcing a person to "take responsibility" (aka require them to surrender their body and the next 18 years of their life) to take care of a child they didn't want will only breed resentment. This is a recipe for screwed up kids. Screwed up kids is a recipe for future adult criminality, AND a similar parenting pattern that messed them up. Better to just abort and have a baby again in 6 years when there is a family and financial situation ready to raise it properly.
Also, you can't just mandate responsibility. Acting responsibly would be to abort the baby you know you can't take care of because to do anything else is dooming a child to either a screwed up life with an immature parent or an orphanage hell. Forcing someone to do the irresponsible thing and then calling it "taking responsibility" is just silly.
Also, it is inaccurate emotionalism to call it a baby. It is not a baby. It might one day be a baby, but not yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:38 pm
mr_zoot I agree. Forcing a person to "take responsibility" (aka require them to surrender their body and the next 18 years of their life) to take care of a child they didn't want will only breed resentment. This is a recipe for screwed up kids. Screwed up kids is a recipe for future adult criminality, AND a similar parenting pattern that messed them up. Better to just abort and have a baby again in 6 years when there is a family and financial situation ready to raise it properly. Also, you can't just mandate responsibility. Acting responsibly would be to abort the baby you know you can't take care of because to do anything else is dooming a child to either a screwed up life with an immature parent or an orphanage hell. Forcing someone to do the irresponsible thing and then calling it "taking responsibility" is just silly. Also, it is inaccurate emotionalism to call it a baby. It is not a baby. It might one day be a baby, but not yet. A mother doesn't have to raise the child! There are plenty of familys that would welcome the newborn and love it like it was their own. Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate admits this simple fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:25 pm
Inevitable Dreamer A mother doesn't have to raise the child! There are plenty of familys that would welcome the newborn and love it like it was their own. pregnancy itself is more than just an inconvenience. Until science lets us transplant a fetus into a volunteer womb, this is not a reason to force women to carry unwanted babies to term. Even then , I think the choices and wishes of a human trump the potential/possible/future wishes and concerns of a ball of cells that is not yet even capable of these things. Inevitable Dreamer Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate admits this simple fact. sure we can call it life. We use the same word for bacteria. And at conception, all it does is divide and grow...much like bacteria. I think even fungus gets the title of 'life'.....so what? Ultimately, though all humans are 'life', all 'life' is not human. The title of human is not something we go around bestowing on just any old lump of biomass willy nilly. A Human, on the other hand, must first be able to survive on its own, outside the mother's body (with medical help is acceptable) This is the first step toward agency, the thing that actually defines us as beings that have duties and rights. Any lump of self replicating biomass that cannot fulfil this basic requirement is not human and does not get accorded human rights. Any regard it is given is on a voluntary basis at the convenience of its host.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:18 pm
Alma_Frostangel i think its wrong you guy are responsible for your actions you should take care of the baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:27 pm
As as personal choice, I am against abortion but I believe in Pro-Choice because, as much as i may disagree, i believe it is ultimately up to the woman. Though I hate how it is becoming a form of birth control. If you decide to have sex, then accept the responsibilities of your actions otherwise, be smart then you won't have the issue. Otherwise, quit your b***hing because it is your fault
I believe that if the woman is in such a bad condition that she can't take care of the child and would kill it herself because she is in such a bad place, then yes but if she isn't willing to kill it herself, she isn't in a bad enough position to get an abortion and thus being a bit of a coward to have someone else do it for her.
Though, on the rape notion, no it was not her fault for getting raped and pregnant, or molested by a friend or family member, as the case normally is, then yes i could understand that because, thought it is not the babies fault, all that baby is, is a reminder of the horrors that happened to her, a reminder of what she would most likely wanting to forget
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:27 pm
additionally, on the off chance that the rapist had some genetic component that contributed to his criminality, we definatly don't want that particular genetic marker making it to the gene pool of the next generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
