Pokemon Game Fan
The Batman
- 569
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 29
- Ontario, California
- Seen Jul 23, 2016
Fun fact: everyone against abortion in this thread has their gender labelled as "male".
I think that says a lot ><.
I completely agree. I noticed that too and I find that both hilarious and sad.
Explain to me where did I say that you should only have sex to procreate?
"I don't think it's morally fine to abort just because you were having sex for fun and not to have kids."
I said exactly what you read, that I don't think it's morally fine to abort just because you were having sex for fun and not to have kids. If you had sex acknowledging the potential risks, knowing that you might procreate while doing so and choose to abort despite of it, I don't think that's morally fine, period.
But the thing is, we have that option now. We have the science and the medical research to have sex without too many potential risks. We have medicine for medical risks, we have abortion for pregnancy risks. I don't see how that is a bad thing.
Snip
I'm sorry, you're over it? Why does that matter to me? I am not putting words in your mouth whatsoever, but I'm not going to try to argue that with you.
And no, I've only mentioned the aids thing once, others have mentioned it and you responded to them. Differentiate between who you are talking to before you say "enough."
Johnny didn't show me evidence of anything, he just said it. Show me concrete evidence that a fetus is a human life, and I'll be on your side in this debate. But there is none. If there were concrete evidence, this wouldn't even be an issue. No one can truly know when life starts, but the generally accepted definition is around 4-6 months. Why do you assume to know more than scientists whose evidence helped craft the original abortion law in the first place? Scientists who defined life to be in that time period. If what you're saying is true and life did begin that instantly, abortion would already be banned. You think abortion in a country that is primarily Christian would be allowed if it was openly considered to be killing babies? But that's just not the case.
So we're both against late term abortion. Neat. Next.
No I haven't. You're both going back on things you have both said. You compared sex to drinking and stealing. Did you not? I mean, did I read the wrong persons post, or did you do that? Cause I swear you did it. I can find the quote if you want me to. You compared the two, you did that. I didn't put words in your mouth when you did that. You just did it. And I explained how I'm not putting words in Johnny's mouth in my response to him in this same post. Also, can you stop saying "my worldview"? This is the problem, people like you look at people like me and think we have some sort of agenda. If babies aren't dying, I'm not happy! No, we're just supporting something that we think is right. I do think women should have the option to abort. I don't think it's morally right to force a woman to carry something that hurts her for 9 months because she did something that is a completely natural urge that DOESN'T HURT ANYONE. This is where your alcohol and stealing comparison falls flat. Alcoholics hurt themselves and others. Stealing hurts the victim. Sex doesn't. Which is why comparing the three is silly.
See, this is the part that bothers me too. I don't know how to win with you. I made a valid comparison (which you just said is fine to make), you got mad/offended, instead of being a dick about it and saying "SCREW YOU, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS!" I decided to be civil and apologize to you for offending you, and now I'm talking down to you? I apologized because I don't like being uncivil with someone who isn't personally attacking me. I suggested you don't be here because I saw that you got really offended by something minor. You're right, I can't control where you can and can not go. You can be here if you want, I'm not TELLING you to not be here, I suggested it as one person to another because maybe this certain topic was a personal thing to you and it bothered you a lot? I don't know your life, I wasn't saying it to be condescending, I was saying it as a person to another person in the nicest way I could. Like I said, I could've been a dick about it and just went off on you or something, but instead I was civil. I don't know what you would have wanted me to do in that situation.
I think it is. For many reasons. Logically, we have too many people in the world as is. Our adoption centers are flooding with unwanted kids. Why would I want someone who doesn't want to have a kid to raise one? They're not going to give the poor child the things they need to thrive, it's just going to suffer.
Emotionally, I don't like the idea of forcing a living human being to carry around a, once again, parasite that will live off their nutrients and make them suffer for 9 months. I would much rather take care of our living people than ones who haven't been born yet. I think it's more 'pro-life' to care about people who are already alive. I wouldn't put an unborn fetus over a living human being.
em·bry·o
ˈembrēˌō/Submit
noun
1.
an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development.
synonyms: fetus
Also, a fetus starts at around 9 weeks. That's right after the second month, that's still 1/3 of the time I would be against abortion (6 months or after). So that's irrelevant. If you mean for the parasite comparison, a parasite is an organism that lives in a living organism and lives off their nutrients. That's literally what a fetus/embryo/even an unborn baby (an 8 month old fetus) is considered this because they live inside of a woman and use her nutrients to survive.
EDIT; Nonetheless, I see that we are only going in circles at this point. You can make your final point to me in fairness, but then I'm done with this.