Ascaris
boogey
- 381
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 29
- In the Medium
- Seen Aug 11, 2016
Who was angry?
Science has told us time and time again that human life begins at fertilisation. You can argue with our beliefs all you want, but you can't argue with human DNA being formed and gaining life.
Reference it. Show me a link that says human life does begin at fertilisation.
A person shouldn't be able to choose the wrong thing.
Because a handful of people say it is wrong does not mean it's wrong.
Who flamed you? If it was me then I'm sorry you've misread my post, I had no intention to. But you cannot expect to talk about this without any arguments and everyone just getting along.
Welcome to a debate. The entire point is to argue.
Doctors said about my cousin when she was born that she would not live beyond the age of 12. She lived to 17 years of age and is the most wonderful and pure person I have known in my life.
Your view would probably have had her killed before she even had the chance to experience life as we know it.
We don't want to kill 'babies' as you say. We feel that it should be up to the mother. If the mother wants to raise the child, cool. If she doesn't, that's cool as well.
I know, it's terrible that some people seem to be destined to live terrible lives, especially those born with unfortunate deformities and the like. But if they're going to die, then let it occur naturally - why should blood be spilt unnecessarily?
Why don't you let it be their choice. Why do you have to interfere in their lives. If they don't want to suffer, they can put a painless end to their lives if they want to. You don't have to decide anything for them.
You had to respond to my post in the quote, didn't you? Not that I should be responding to this since your post just winds up being so immature near the end, and your latest post in this thread is just pathetic.
Because references to my immaturity is totally relevant to the topic at hand.
You've misread my words - I meant to ask those people with the rare genetic disorder , not an unborn child.
So, I never said no. If a person can decide if they want to live or not, by all means they should.
No, but I imagine it's better than being, I dunno... dead.
Again, you have no right to tell them what to do. It has to be their choice.
So because the child is unwanted, we should kill it? We should kill all unwanted children for the simple crime of being unwanted. However, you are wrong. There are always those who want a child but cannot have one - there are even those that specifically want children who have conditions such as Downs Syndrome and so on. What you don't want may just be what another is seeking.
Oh... well done. You completely took my post out of context and twisted it to benefit your argument.
No, we should not kill unwanted children. We are talking about fetuses, we are talking about abortion. It the mother doesn't want to have a child why should she be forced to?
As for those people who want to have a child, adoption centers are drowning with children. They would be doing a great thing in adoption one of them.
There's always a chance for things to improve in life. In death that's it, no buts.
Fetuses 'die' before they are born. They don't get a chance to experience life, they don't want to experience life, they won't miss life.
Did I mention America? I don't live in America. Don't assume things, and there is a problem wherever there is legalised abortion.
You're talking about developed nations. It's a very one-sided view of things as not every nation on Earth is developed. Abortion is a world wide issue.
No, I was saying that what the person does with their life doesn't make them anymore or less valuable. A life is a life.
Fetus =/= Alive.
Sorry, did I fall asleep and miss when killing another person became a moral act?
Fetus =/= Alive.
I didn't say not to have sex. I said you have to accept the consequences for your actions.
No, you are saying "If you can't take care of a baby, don't have sex." Which is pretty much the same thing.
Abortion is not the only option. That's half the problem with this. Women think that there's no way out other than abortion and so are pretty much forced into killing their unborn child. Beautiful combo huh?
Stupido you much? When did I ever say that adoption was the only option? Where are you getting these ridiculous facts from?
I had to specifically quote this part because it's just a ridiculous statement.
1. The only difference between abortions back then and now is that they now go through the front door.
What does that have to do with anything?
2. The mother always faces the risk of being harmed by an abortion, where ever it's performed.
The idiocy of the above statement is nearly equal to this: "Why get a heart surgery at a respected hospital when you can get one at a back alley for ten dollars. The person has the same risk of dying anyway.
3. Isn't the purpose of an abortion to fatally harm an unborn human child? lol roffle lmao.
Haha haha it's so funny. Forcing the mother to go to back alleys to have an abortion that could potentially kill her is absolutely hilarious.
You are so naive. Things change. The required amount of suffering will decrease, or doctor's will exaggerate the suffering of a patient, family members my push the patient, and so on.
Family members encourage the patient to die?
ROFLMAO! You are being so hypocritical right about now, so perfectly naive. What makes you think relatives will condemn their own family member to death?
The baby is human. Human, human human.
You are in denial. It doesn't display all the seven signs of life.
Just look at it's neck! (Invader Zim reference, had to be done).
What?
Killing the child in the womb is exactly the same as killing an adult.
So far this is all you've said in this debate without even providing evidence to back it up.
Sarcasm or do I have to take that seriously? lol.
That's where euthanasia will go. Again, you are naive. Ugh, so naive that you think a mother always talks over the abortion with others.
And you are incredibly naive in thinking that mothers who abort are immoral and irresponsible.
But back to the religion thing: no one mentioned it, not once. It was simply stated in an attempt to undermine the pro-life argument, even though secular societies outlaw murder and would probably agree on the scientific fact that human life begins at fertilisation.
It wasn't even indented towards you. There are people who believe abortion is wrong because of their religion. Why are you making a big deal out of it.
And excuse me, 'scientific fact'? Here you are again making statements without backing them up in the slightest.
So what if he's black? He just said it'd be good if there were more black children aborted.
I was worried people would call him racist.
Then give it up. Killing is not fine.
Was I posting as a moderator? Sure, I have the pretty badge and the different coloured name, but I was posting as a member. In addition, there is nothing wrong with my post anyway.
"Killing the people for the good of the people" should be the pro-abortion/euthanasia slogan.
You put too much value to the life of a parasite.
It is alive.
It is human.
It is alive.
It is a severely underdeveloped human which does not give it the same rights as you or me.
It's not potential life - it is alive. All it needs is a chance to grow.
No, it is not alive during the first two trimesters which is when abortions usually take place. Let's take another look at the seven signs of life.
1. Movement: Does the fetus show this? No.
2. Respiration: It does.
3. Sensitivity: It's not sensitive.
4. Growth: It grows.
5. Reproduction: The cells reproduce.
6. Excretion: It excretes through the mother.
7. Nutrition: it gets nutrition from the mother.
5 out of 7. A fetus is not alive.
What is a fetus then? How can it not be human? We all started out as a little clump of cells, and we all developed and grew for 9 months until we were born.
So?
You were a fetus as some point...Take a second and think. You have a wonderful chance at life, a chance to go out and experience the world and all the great things it has.
That's because both my parents were financially secure, could support me and wanted me. Trust me, I'd rather be dead than spend my life in an orphanage or in poverty.
But you're simultaneously saying that other people, who have not yet had the chance to develop fully, are not worthy of life simple because they haven't been born yet?
People, no. Fetus, yes.
It should be the mother's choice. I'm not denying them anything.
You're a hypocrite.
First rule of debating: Attack the argument, not the arguer.
You were exactly the same as all of those babies that have been unceremoniously ripped from their mother's womb. And yet, you deny that the very same thing that you were at some point has any significance? That is sad...
Okay, let's say my parents did decide to abort me. Would I care?
No.
Here's something I have to say to all pro-lifes out there: We are not for killing babies. We don't encourage murder. We feel that it's the mother's choice and we don't have any right to tell them it's right or wrong. And neither do you. So, kindly, for the sake of all the mothers to-be out and fetuses out there, mind your own beeswax.
Do you honestly think condemning abortion will stop women from wanting to have it?