
| LampofLight wrote: |
| So what is the reasoning or justification for the destruction ?
s there anything besides a personal want or desire involved ? Not sayign some aren't perhaps justified medically, but discounting a medical reason, what other justification could there possibly be for destroying a unique human life ? Seems selfish and/or self serving at the expense of a human being, and as a direct result of sexual irresponsibility to me. I welcome your thoughts. |
| LampofLight wrote: |
| S
A person with a mental disability is only stabilized by their prescription and yet all drugs (good or bad) are harmful to a pregnancy, by entitling a fetus to contain more rights would enforce slavery upon a woman. |
| oopoopoop wrote: |
| No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone. |
| diamondsz wrote: | ||
I am so glad you brought this up, as this was my reason for having an abortion. But it wasn't just the meds that could have harmed the fetus (that I was not willing to stop taking anyway) but the fact that the second my pregnancy symptoms kicked in, my anxiety and OCD went out of control. I literally had to double my doses just to get by. I felt terrible and was a ball of nerves. There was no way I was going to live like that for 9 months. |
| oopoopoop wrote: |
| No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone. |
| LampofLight wrote: |
| Sure you can be unique while utilizing or depending upon someone elses resources. My children a good example. they are completely dependent upon the resources I provide them in order to survive (ie: food, shelter, clothing, etc). Withought me providing them resources (or someone else fillign my shoes and providing it), their survivability goes WAY WAY down. But how about elderly people in a nursing home ? They are purely dependent upon the resources and care-giving of the nursing home, without which they would perish. Are we to consider that young children and the elderly should have no rights, since, after all, they are dependent upon resources that are not theirs in order to survive ?
I must apologize I do not folow the "unique characteristics that set you apart", or the self esteem issues thats beside the point" part...were you speaking to the zygote/embryo/fetus ? how do they have self esteem issues ? or Was this some kind of vieled personal attack ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
| Thank you for your reply diamondsz.
I was speaking to the moral justification as opposed to the legal. There is no question a person is legally justified, but that does not mean it is necessarily morally justified. Laws do not define what is moral, although in general, they seemingly aspire to be moral(for the most part). Why is it legal ? because the people with authority to establish the law of the land made it legal. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
Sure you can be unique while utilizing or depending upon someone elses resources. My children a good example. they are completely dependent upon the resources I provide them in order to survive (ie: food, shelter, clothing, etc). |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
So by your reasoning then, my child has the potential to grow into adulthood, but potential is a big word in regards to children, and has the potential to either be neutral, positive , or negative...so should I have the right to kill my child, since, after all, potnetial to grow to adulthood could be negative ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
So are you saying that a mentally disabled person needs to have their children aborted always ? Isn't that the precise reasoning of hitlers, and why he had all the mentally ill people sexually neutered ?? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
Just because the fetus requires the nutrients the mother supplys does not make the fetus the woman. Science can clearly demonstrate that this is not a matter of fact or truth. If the fetus was TRULY the woman, they would be unable to differentiate between the fetus and the woman, but they can most assuredly demonstrate they are NOT the same person. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
So by your reasoning then the elderly in nursing homes requiring care are equally to be considered parasites that should be terminated if the property owner (in this case the nursing home) decides they no longer desire to provide them care ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
But who speaks on behalf of the unique human that cannot yet speak on their own behalf ? What unique human person doesn't desire to live as opposed to die (other then someone who is mentally ill). |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
There is no doubt that our soceity today is havign a great amount of difficulty with responsibility. It is glaringly obvious. Accountability and responsibility are things that people seem to want to avoid like the plague these days. never-the-less, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "perceptions ideally are not reality, but what you make of them as a unique individual". To the contrary, perceptions IDEALLY are reality, and what we make of perceptions as unique individuals is often NOT reality. Sure, our personal perceptions become our own personal reality, but that however does not make it reality. I could see spiders walkign on my body all the time, and to my perception it is reality, however, it is not true reality, but ratehr a delusion of my mind. So IDEALLY, our perceptions ARE reality (whether or not its true reality, is really beside the point). But how does any of this matter in the case of abortion , responsibility, or accountability ? I mean I could preceive I have no obligation to obey the traffic light, but the true reality is very different, even if my own percieved reality is not. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
While I appreciate your example, it is apples and oranges. Teh rights denied to the child (ie: alchohol) is not a permanent exclusion. The child at some point will be able to exercise his right to drink. The aborted baby , on the other hand, is excluded from the fundamental right to life. The aborted baby will NEVER have the opportunity to "age" or aquire the appropriate "judgement" that it otherwise would have enjoyed as a matter of course, if it had not been aborted. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
How does vasectomies play into it ? Are you sayign if women should be prevented from being able to abort their babies, that men should be forced to receive vasectomies ? I don't follow your reasoning here. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
I disagree. The primary purpose of law is to establish an ordered society.How a particular society establishes law is based upon the particular outlook or views of that society (particularly the controlling power of that society). |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
How does abortion prevent discrimination ? oppression ? slavery ? I guess one argues oppression/slavery in that they don't want to have a child that they are now carrying, but isn't that an issue of personal responsibility and accountability ? I mean one would not be having that issue if one simply exercised caution or restraint. The way I see it, sexual interaction requires a certain amount of maturity and understanding, and by extension personal responsibility and accountability. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
You can't be serious. Equality to who ? resources... you mean nutrients ? and those can't be resupplied ? sense of being ?? how does killing your baby provide you a sense of being ? beign what ..a destroyer of human life ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
the option to be a parent has ALWAYS been there, you should have said the option to NOT be a parent even though you acted irresponsibily and put yourself in the position where you ARE a parent and now want to shirk the responsibilty by causing the death of your own child. Since when does having an abortion provide respect ? and from whom ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
dignity ? dignity to whom and in what manner ? empathy...empathy for the unborn ? or exlusively for the mother alone ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
compassion for whom ? the mother alone at teh expense of the unborn child ? the best of all choices should have been handled responsibly to begin with. The choice for abortion is a direct result of irresponsibility and personal selfishness at the cost of human life in the VAST majority of cases. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
whther or not you can or can't have an abortion should not in any way affect your ability to work (the law requires paid leave), a choice to go to school (pregnant women go to school all the time). |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
a choice to date whom you please (pregnant women can date whomever they please), a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person you love (you can have sex with the person you love in a responsible manner (and in a variety of ways)that pretty much excludes any possibility of getting pregnant, and if you truly loved the person, why would you want to kill the unified flesh of the two of you...the direct product of the love you expressed ? |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
pro-choice kills human dna and kills human beings mentally as well. pro-life kills human beings mentally who were not capable of, or mature enough, to exercise their sexual escapades in a responisble manner and actually be able to be both responsible and accountable to their own actions. |
| LampOflight wrote: |
|
Sure, raising children is tough, I should know since I have three of them. If a person is destroyed mentally by the task of child rearing, then they frankly were mentally unstable to begin with. |
| LampofLight wrote: |
| Pro-choice kills human dna
Pro-life kills human beings mentally " |
| LampofLight wrote: |
| So are you saying that a mentally disabled person needs to have their children aborted always ? Isn't that the precise reasoning of hitlers, and why he had all the mentally ill people sexually neutered ??
Just because the fetus requires the nutrients the mother supplys does not make the fetus the woman. Science can clearly demonstrate that this is not a matter of fact or truth. If the fetus was TRULY the woman, they would be unable to differentiate between the fetus and the woman, but they can most assuredly demonstrate they are NOT the same person. survivability does not a person make. refer back to the elderly in the nursing home. Some of them have ZERO chance of survivability without nutrients and oxygen supplied by the nursing home. Should they not be considered unique persons with rights, and instead be considered the nursing homes private property ? |
| LampofLight wrote: | ||
But isn't the woman in effect acting like a slave holder in your scenario ? Isn't the unborn baby being treated like a piece of propety, and VERY similiarly to the way the white man used treat the african slave ? (ie: it is just property with no human rights) |
| LampofLight wrote: |
| Science clearly can discern whether a zygote is human or not.
Science can clearly tell us if the zygote is dead or alive. Thus, science can clearly tell us if this human life is alive or not. Is it a unique human life ? Of course it is. What makes a unique person ? Science can clearly tell us that it is our unique genetic make-up which makes us who we are, and thus, the full unique human being is contained within the zygote. It is only a matter of time until it grows into a unique human adult. There is no scientific question as to whether it is a unique human life, and there is no scientific question as to when that unique human life begins...at conception. The only debate between pro-choice and pro-life is when that unique human life has the right not to be killed. I posit that all human life has the right to live. I posit that the argument "it's a woman's body, and it's her choice", is completely lame, for the fact that it IS NOT just the woman's body, there is a UNIQUE HUMAN LIFE besides her's that is not being granted basic human rights, and yet, it is human, it is alive, and it is a unique being. Why is a person not granted any basic human rights until they are grown to a certain size ? All of the arguments I have heard against are because "it doesn't look liek a human", or "it looks just liek every other animal in the first x weeks", etc, but the fact of reality is just because it doesn't look human, doesn't mean it isn't...science CLEARLY can tell us it is...and just because it looks like other animals in the first stages, doesn't mean it isn't human..it IS human. So what is the reasoning or justification for the destruction ? Is there anything besides a personal want or desire involved ? Not sayign some aren't perhaps justified medically, but discounting a medical reason, what other justification could there possibly be for destroying a unique human life ? Seems selfish and/or self serving at the expense of a human being, and as a direct result of sexual irresponsibility to me. I welcome your thoughts. |
| NeutralUsername wrote: |
| [. There is no reason to dehumanize the unborn when it comes to the abortion debate. You can still admit it's a unique human is still be pro-choice. |
| NeutralUsername wrote: |
|
What I don't understand is when someone mentions how it doesn't look human, or it's tiny, or it doesn't think, or whatever. It does not matter. The unborn are human. Our species did not change at birth. We ALL were zygotes, embryos and fetuses. You can't deny that. We ALL looked like we did in the womb. I hate when I hear pro-choicers say or imply that the unborn are not even human, or they are just a ball of cells and nothing more (even though us being here proves that is not actually true). There is no reason to dehumanize the unborn when it comes to the abortion debate. You can still admit it's a unique human is still be pro-choice. |
| LampofLight wrote: |
| I see. So people should be free to do what they want, when they want. There is truly no right or wrong, only what we want or desire on a personal level. Yet you are IN FACT arguing pro-choice is RIGHT. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim there is nothign moral, and then try to claim your position on ANYTHING is somehow RIGHT. If there is no moral issues, then it is IMPOSSIBLE it is right or wrong, by the very definition of what is right, which is derived from what is RIGHTEOUS, which is derived from the morality supplied by God through various assorted belief systems. |
| We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here. |



