Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion Scenario

ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:44:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The question seems to be directed towards people who find abortion immoral.

I don't equate fetus with a living being, hence to me, it is entirely the imperative of the mother. The fetus belongs to the mother. If it was me, I would probably abort the baby , rather than bringing it into a world of immense pain and uncertainty. It is uncertain whether the scientists will develop the cure. I would not take that chance.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 6:44:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

My wife and I have discussed this. We would have the baby.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 7:02:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Look at it this way. Why do you have the right to deprive it of life? I mean, I know several small kids who have diseases that, while we would find them horrific to live with, and they are to an extent, the kids are still very much so happy to be alive. Essentially, its all they know, so that makes it less....painful for them I suppose? And the right to life being deprived of them is another reason. Depends on your view of abortion.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 6:56:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am fine with abortion. But, I probably would have the kid since scientists are close to a cure. If I want a kid, I will have him, and give him a chance at life.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 1:50:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

Have some compassion. Don't let your child suffer for your morality -- your morality is not his fault.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 2:49:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

How about. Change nothing except fast forward two years.

You just found found out your 2yr child has some horrible disease yadda yadda

Are you going to take her out in a field and put a bullet behind her ear?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 2:58:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 2:51:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nail it's parts to 6 different trees and dance around them naked, smoking meth.

If ur daddy only knew he might have done that 17 years ago.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 3:05:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 2:58:46 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:51:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nail it's parts to 6 different trees and dance around them naked, smoking meth.

If ur daddy only knew he might have done that 17 years ago.

Never knew my dad.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 3:06:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 3:05:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:58:46 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:51:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nail it's parts to 6 different trees and dance around them naked, smoking meth.

If ur daddy only knew he might have done that 17 years ago.

Never knew my dad.

Ahhhh, that explains a lot.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 3:13:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 3:06:53 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/10/2012 3:05:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:58:46 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:51:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nail it's parts to 6 different trees and dance around them naked, smoking meth.

If ur daddy only knew he might have done that 17 years ago.

Never knew my dad.

Ahhhh, that explains a lot.

Your webcam caught a picture of you typing that.

http://images.wikia.com...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 3:24:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 3:13:10 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/10/2012 3:06:53 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/10/2012 3:05:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:58:46 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:51:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nail it's parts to 6 different trees and dance around them naked, smoking meth.

If ur daddy only knew he might have done that 17 years ago.

Never knew my dad.

Ahhhh, that explains a lot.

Your webcam caught a picture of you typing that.

http://images.wikia.com...

Lol, no not really. That really does explain a lot.

If freedo wants to swap sad stories I got a book full of them.

I just find it repulsive when someone likes to say offending things but gets their panties in a bunch if it fed back to them. Like I said, that explains a lot.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 4:33:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love it when my panties get in a bunch. The way it rides up into my anus. Much like those babies before they are dismembered.

But really. I'm so fucking happy, I could shit rainbows. And not gay rainbows. Mainly rainbows of asskickary. And ponies. And lets throw nutella in there too. Nutella is fucking awesome.

I should create another ode to the sheer infathomability of one of my characteristics. This one being my seemingly baseless satisfaction with life.

You know, it's not fair. I would feel sorry for all of you if I wasn't too busy feeling like the physical carnation of fucking victory.

Blaiz eet fagggg0t.

VERMIN SUPREME 2012
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 4:47:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

Quite honestly, I would not want my child to suffer and would rather them die than to live in that pain. Though the truth prevails and I can not kill my child no matter the cost. Not fully because I do not want him to die and he deserves a chance to live but because I could not live myself afterwards for denying them that. Regardless what the cause is, it is a killing on my part and I would be worthy of punishment from a Higher judged.
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 6:10:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 4:47:06 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:

Quite honestly, I would not want my child to suffer and would rather them die than to live in that pain. Though the truth prevails and I can not kill my child no matter the cost. Not fully because I do not want him to die and he deserves a chance to live but because I could not live myself afterwards for denying them that. Regardless what the cause is, it is a killing on my part and I would be worthy of punishment from a Higher judged.

Perhaps part of the my problem lies in the far that in not even 18 and having my own kids is a long way down the track. Reading these posts the one things that i have been thinking about is if I would be able to justify denying them any chance at all, and I don't think I could.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 7:31:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 2:49:30 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

How about. Change nothing except fast forward two years.

You just found found out your 2yr child has some horrible disease yadda yadda

Are you going to take her out in a field and put a bullet behind her ear?

But the two scenerios cannot be equated, can they? A two year old child is living. He has a life. A fetus is a POTENTIAL life. It's not actually living.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 9:10:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 7:31:40 AM, Cermank wrote:
But the two scenerios cannot be equated, can they? A two year old child is living. He has a life. A fetus is a POTENTIAL life. It's not actually living.

So a fetus is not alive? Really?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 12:27:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 9:10:03 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:

So a fetus is not alive? Really?

I meant life in terms of life experiences, emotions, and all that. Not the scientific definition of life. It's not dead, of course: but its not alive per say. A life of a fetus cannot be equated to a human, yes.

A fetus is a potential human being.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 12:29:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 12:27:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
I meant life in terms of life experiences, emotions, and all that. Not the scientific definition of life. It's not dead, of course: but its not alive per say.

What is your definition of life, and how do you justify it being different from the scientific one?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 12:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. I would murder this innocent child in cold blood.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 9:51:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 12:29:23 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/10/2012 12:27:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
I meant life in terms of life experiences, emotions, and all that. Not the scientific definition of life. It's not dead, of course: but its not alive per say.

What is your definition of life, and how do you justify it being different from the scientific one?

I believe in the neurological view on the inception of life, life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected. It's not exactly different from the scientific view, we are looking at life from different lenses.

Science views a person as alive when he has the ability to 'grow', through metabolism, and perform general functions like reproduction, and adapt itself to its environment.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 9:55:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe in the neurological view on the inception of life, life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected. It's not exactly different from the scientific view, we are looking at life from different lenses.

Science views a person as alive when he has the ability to 'grow', through metabolism, and perform general functions like reproduction, and adapt itself to its environment.

Even if you take the scientific definition, viruses are considered as borderline cases, because they derive their life from the host cell. A fetus has the similar characteristic. It derives nourishment from the mother's body.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 10:25:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 9:51:34 AM, Cermank wrote:
I believe in the neurological view on the inception of life, life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected. It's not exactly different from the scientific view, we are looking at life from different lenses.

Are bacteria alive?

Science views a person as alive when he has the ability to 'grow', through metabolism, and perform general functions like reproduction, and adapt itself to its environment.

Really. Please provide a source.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 10:29:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/10/2012 7:31:40 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 10/10/2012 2:49:30 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

How about. Change nothing except fast forward two years.

You just found found out your 2yr child has some horrible disease yadda yadda

Are you going to take her out in a field and put a bullet behind her ear?

But the two scenerios cannot be equated, can they? A two year old child is living. He has a life. A fetus is a POTENTIAL life. It's not actually living.

Not alive?

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4]Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

I think you might be misrepresenting the definition a bit. The whole definition rest of the differences between something alive and dead or inanimate. I don't think this defintion rest solely on the two listed above. It doesn't seem to cover the development stages of life at all. Basically it's comparing something alive to something dead, or a rock. And just for the record, I have no problem removing babies that have died without being murdered. And rocks, no problems with aborting rocks.

Ok, if two years is a problem how about two minutes? Nothing will have changed execpt the natural process of aging. And sun rose 730 times.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 8:11:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

I WOULDN'T know, you would have to ask the mother.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 1:10:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 8:11:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

I WOULDN'T know, you would have to ask the mother.

What if you're the father? Wouldn't you want some say in the matter?
These are not the droids you're looking for.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 1:40:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 1:10:51 AM, ObiWan wrote:
At 10/14/2012 8:11:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

I WOULDN'T know, you would have to ask the mother.

What if you're the father? Wouldn't you want some say in the matter?

Well sure. But, your post seems to be asking me what I think they should do with their unborn baby. I have no idea! It could be morally right either way depending on the things they value..
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 4:44:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 1:40:08 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/15/2012 1:10:51 AM, ObiWan wrote:
At 10/14/2012 8:11:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/9/2012 4:26:14 AM, ObiWan wrote:
You have just found out that that your unborn baby will be born with a life threatening disease, that will almost certainly result in painful death within the first 3-4 years of life (although it is possible they survive). Currently there is no cure, although scientists believe that they are close and will have one in the next 3-4 years.

Would it be more morally right to abort the baby and not subject the child to any pain and suffering when it's most likely it will die anyway or give the child a chance of surviving and living either with the disease or until they find a cure.

This situation has been troubling me for the last few days and I was wondering what others thought.

I WOULDN'T know, you would have to ask the mother.

What if you're the father? Wouldn't you want some say in the matter?

Well sure. But, your post seems to be asking me what I think they should do with their unborn baby. I have no idea! It could be morally right either way depending on the things they value..

I understand your interpretation, but I was more asking what people would do if they were in this situation themselves. Otherwise, you're right and the answer is simple, it comes down to what the individual values.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:06:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't get how we can know that a child will die at age 3-4 and know that it will suffer x amount of pain and have y amount of sadness. So far as I'm concerned the baby should live due to any information being circumstantial and unfounded. Not worth the risk of taking a life, if it turns out the be true, then that's ok too, we shouldn't prevent pain, its completely natural.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...