Pages:
Author

Topic: So, let's talk about that new abortion law... - page 2. (Read 695 times)

legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
But rape isn't the thing we are really talking about.

You're making generalisations hence including all cases.

No abortion in case of rape?
No abortion in case of important health risk for the mother?
No abortion in case of definitive and important physical/mental/genetic malformation of the baby?

The only time there should be abortion is when it is medically certain that the mother's life is endangered by the birth. Most of these cases, there can be cesareans done to save both mother and child. There is such a thing as adoption if the mother doesn't want the child.

Let death come naturally or by accident - as it does for all of us in old age, if we aren't killed in a car or plane accident first - not by murder. Not by abortion murder.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

So there is no difference for you between the growth of a baby elephant and a human baby?
And you're the one talking about scientific ground?

The only thing that makes human fully different from animals is self consciousness and the ability to conceive the world outside as a different part from us. Cogito ergo sum.
This is an ability acquired by everyone around the age of 1. Until then, what's the difference between a baby and a dog? You're going to talk about the soul?

Give me one element, just one, that make a human different from an animal and that is developped in a 5 months old and I'll withdraw my claim as you will have brought to my attention an objective element.

Until now all you've done is said how "morally wrong" it is.

Great but your moral means nothing to me.

The difference is that elephants don't abort people. If they did, they should be put to death for murder, just like if they killed any human, or just like any human should for killing another human.

You only have the belief that humans are simply greater animals. There is much evidence that humans have a soul. Your religion that they don't is just another religion.

The evidence is the religions throughout the world. Science has only made some of us THINK that we are superior enough to be able to get out of being religious. Science is blinding us to the reality that we are religious. Science has become our religion when it so blinds us.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
But rape isn't the thing we are really talking about.

You're making generalisations hence including all cases.

No abortion in case of rape?
No abortion in case of important health risk for the mother?
No abortion in case of definitive and important physical/mental/genetic malformation of the baby?
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
If you just have to abort, do it the right way... suicide.


When a child is conceived, it is a sacred trust between a man and a woman.

Clearly you're all on the "good" side of moral here.

Telling a woman to suicide rather than to abort...

I guess that rape childe are also the " sacred trust between a man and a woman " Badecker. Obviously.


But rape isn't the thing we are really talking about.

If a woman kills somebody, she should be executed just like anyone else... for murder. The suicide idea is simply the way she should murder her child if she is going to do it at all.

The rapist should be executed whether or not there is an abortion. A smart person will make a signed agreement with the prostitute/slut so that he will have to pay rather than die.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
If you just have to abort, do it the right way... suicide.


When a child is conceived, it is a sacred trust between a man and a woman.

Clearly you're all on the "good" side of moral here.

Telling a woman to suicide rather than to abort...

I guess that rape childe are also the " sacred trust between a man and a woman " Badecker. Obviously.

Now that we've established the 1 year olds can be put out of our misery as well as, of course, fetuses, we need to 'start a conversation' about the 'highest and best' use for the otherwise wasted tissues.

No one ever established that it's just a stupid deformation of my words from CoinCube.
Never said 1 year old had no right to live....

Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

So there is no difference for you between the growth of a baby elephant and a human baby?
And you're the one talking about scientific ground?

The only thing that makes human fully different from animals is self consciousness and the ability to conceive the world outside as a different part from us. Cogito ergo sum.
This is an ability acquired by everyone around the age of 1. Until then, what's the difference between a baby and a dog? You're going to talk about the soul?

Give me one element, just one, that make a human different from an animal and that is developped in a 5 months old and I'll withdraw my claim as you will have brought to my attention an objective element.

Until now all you've done is said how "morally wrong" it is.

Great but your moral means nothing to me.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
^^^ Absolutely right! Abortion is murder, and legalized abortion is legalized murder.


If you don't want children, abstain from sex.

If you just have to abort, do it the right way... suicide.


When a child is conceived, it is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. The man is the Creator, the woman is the Trustee, and the child is the Beneficiary. Since it is a trust, it falls under the law. When laws are made that break the trust through abortion, the lawmakers have become illegal and unlawful.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
Children under 1 are not human

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.


You seem to believe in a completely binary world...

Are you aware that midles exist? I stand my claim saying children under 1 are not humans or that you need a different word to designate them as they are still to developp anything that would make them different from a puppy.

But not being fully human doesn't mean you have no right.

You seem to believe that what you think is morally right but please demonstrate so.

Considering a 2 months old child as a human being is stupid. A 3 year old dog is closer to a human than a 2 month old child in terms of intelligence, skills, affection, cognitive maturity... Of course it doesn't mean that the 2 month old child isn't extremely important as it has the potential. But that's just potential.

And stating this isn't a crime or morally wrong whatever you and your religious clan say.

Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

The only reason to play such word games is if one has an agenda. Human beings always attempt to define some other group of humans as sub human or not human as a way to ease our conscience before we get on with the extermination/genocide/murder we want to commit at the moment.

We do not need a new word for human beings under the age of one because we already have a fully functional one. We call them babies. Babies are human beings.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
Now that we've established the 1 year olds can be put out of our misery as well as, of course, fetuses, we need to 'start a conversation' about the 'highest and best' use for the otherwise wasted tissues.

Clearly our advanced societies recognize the virtue of using these otherwise wasted tissue for 'science' (and 'intact cases' command a premium for some reason), but some people may have spiritual needs which can be satisfied by 'doing things' with the tissues.  Doesn't it make sense that the parents of the tissue should be able to reap the financial rewards by selling the tissues to occultists?

Just asking.

member
Activity: 337
Merit: 10
Bet2dream.com
Abortion, is a no no for me. If an unmarried partners get pregnant, then its best to keep the baby. The society would talk for a while and then move on with their daily lives and then if its in marriage, the child should be spared. The child could be given to the convent after child birth for a proper care, later on the parents can re-adopt the child when their finances are better.

Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.
The first reason why some of us don't agree about the abortion because it is actually a sin and against the religion. Having a baby is a blessing but killing it is no mercy. Mostly in the 3rd world countries people who are lack of education about planning is more active in having so many babies.
member
Activity: 154
Merit: 13

[/quote]Taking a decision on this issue is very difficult.
Abortion can occur if there are serious genetic defects and abnormalities.
When is abortion necessary?

Conditions for therapeutic abortion
There are three strict and clear conditions committed by doctors and determine the position of the doctor of the abortion process is rejected or rejected, these conditions are:
• Pregnancy risk: pregnancy is considered a risk to the mother's life.
• The usefulness of abortion: that termination of pregnancy saves the mother from health risks for its continuation.
• Abortion safety: that abortion does not cause health problems that may be worse than continuing pregnancy.
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
Children under 1 are not human

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.


You seem to believe in a completely binary world...

Are you aware that midles exist? I stand my claim saying children under 1 are not humans or that you need a different word to designate them as they are still to developp anything that would make them different from a puppy.

But not being fully human doesn't mean you have no right.

You seem to believe that what you think is morally right but please demonstrate so.

Considering a 2 months old child as a human being is stupid. A 3 year old dog is closer to a human than a 2 month old child in terms of intelligence, skills, affection, cognitive maturity... Of course it doesn't mean that the 2 month old child isn't extremely important as it has the potential. But that's just potential.

And stating this isn't a crime or morally wrong whatever you and your religious clan say.
legendary
Activity: 2366
Merit: 1206
snip-
Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.
If we will remove religious beliefs and will focus on facing and solving the problem. Abortion law is the last option for avoiding such things.
I heard a discussion about it before and the person who was supporting abortion law were convincing.

Abortion law must consider only reasonable abortions such as,

- A woman who was raped by a man and got pregnant.
- An underage girl who will not be able to sustain and be liable to her child because.
- A person with a disorder that if she can barely do the labor and could die with it.

Abortion is the last option to control birth. Since we are human, people will not be able to avoid having premarital sex 100%. Contraceptives must always be there to avoid the abortion and that is a law we need to focus on executing.
jr. member
Activity: 2086
Merit: 1
Abortion, is a no no for me. If an unmarried partners get pregnant, then its best to keep the baby. The society would talk for a while and then move on with their daily lives and then if its in marriage, the child should be spared. The child could be given to the convent after child birth for a proper care, later on the parents can re-adopt the child when their finances are better.

Passing and legalizing abortion makes us ruthless as humans.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
I suspect this whole blackface event was designed to distract from these new post birth abortion laws...
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
In my opinion before child birth, the mother should have full right to choose abortion or not. Some women might suffer mental, finance, or any terrible reason to keep the kid, if our sociality isn’t able to help woman give birth straight away, then don’t punish the woman if she don’t want to continue their pregnancy. I know there are many religious believe this is very cruel, but I think it is more cruel to punish a woman and give birth to unwanted child, it is painful to see abortion, I don’t think a woman want to harm their own body or own child for not reason.

The woman made a deal with the man to get pregnant if it came to that. If she wanted to be safe, she should have abstained.

Now that she is pregnant, she should kill the baby?!?

There might be a few cases where arrangements need to be made... like rape, or where the birth of the child will for-a-fact kill the mother. But the arrangements shouldn't include death of the child.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055

What's the moral error in saying that someone having different mental abilities is different?

I say under 1 year old you have less mental habilities making you closer to an animal than once you grow and get new mental habilities.

You are the ones saying I want to kill babies under 1 year old Oo

I have no idea what your personal proclivities towards murder are and they are irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong in saying that human infants are more like animals than human adults. That is simple observation. However you said something very different.

Your claim is:
Children under 1 are not human

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.

Whether you personally want to kill babies under one year of age is irrelevant. If people of your ideology are allowed to obtain power they will be missing the necessary moral check that makes it inconceivable to strip away the rights of the weak and vulnerable.

You are confused. You have mistaken right from wrong and up from down. Your confusion if allowed to spread and grow unopposed would someday allow people to lawfully murder babies under the age of one. Many people are confused like you are and as a result New York now allows fully developed and viable babies to be murdered up to the day of delivery if the mother can find an abortion doctor willing to claim that the babies continued life harms her mental health.  
member
Activity: 462
Merit: 23
In my opinion before child birth, the mother should have full right to choose abortion or not. Some women might suffer mental, finance, or any terrible reason to keep the kid, if our sociality isn’t able to help woman give birth straight away, then don’t punish the woman if she don’t want to continue their pregnancy. I know there are many religious believe this is very cruel, but I think it is more cruel to punish a woman and give birth to unwanted child, it is painful to see abortion, I don’t think a woman want to harm their own body or own child for not reason.
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
Your willingness to classify a population of your fellow human beings as Untermensch "inferior people" who are undeserving of the inherrent right to live.
Never said that.
Quote

The fact that you choose a different population of humans to apply your beliefs to is irrelevant. Some one else may decide it's the old and mentally incompetent who should be euthanized for the greater good or the young children with severe debilitating disabilities.
Never said that.
Quote

It's the same moral error wrapped up in different policy goals.
What's the moral error in saying that someone having different mental abilities is different?

I say under 1 year old you have less mental habilities making you closer to an animal than once you grow and get new mental habilities.

You are the ones saying I want to kill babies under 1 year old Oo
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison.

The link between me thinking any baby under 1 is not really more than an animal before the age of one because it has no self consciousness and Nazis being?

Your willingness to classify a population of your fellow human beings as Untermensch "inferior people" who are undeserving of the inherrent right to live.

The fact that you choose a different population of humans to apply your beliefs to is irrelevant. Some one else may decide it's the old and mentally incompetent who should be euthanized for the greater good or the young children with severe debilitating disabilities.

It's the same moral error wrapped up in different policy goals.
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison.

The link between me thinking any baby under 1 is not really more than an animal before the age of one because it has no self consciousness and Nazis being?
Pages:
Jump to: