Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti Abortion... why...

BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 2:18:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
*warning Rant incoming*

How I see it,
Its the woman's choice
Anti abortion is pro children suffering, for it forces people who are not able to take care or afford a child at that time. Forcing a child to be born in this condition will place them in a danger of being seized by child protection services, harsh living conditions, lack of parent contact, and possible rejection by the forced parent who may have gotten pregnant by a rapist. Leading to this child's development to be a harsh neglected life, compared to a child who was born willingly.

If your anti abortion you Have to be Pro children rights, children are most vulnerable when in parents hands. They have the potential of being raped, beaten, forced into unwanted labor, etc... Which only makes this next point more valid if Abortion is not allowed then all parents should not have rights to their children due to the potential of neglect and violent by the parents themselves, therefor the children must be raised in structured environment away from their parents till a proper age at which they are allowed to choose to live with their parents, recommended age of 16-18 minimum. They would be raised in a strictly regulated facility that is closely monitored for staff abuse or mistreatment.

I know i'm going to get flamed by that last comment, but its the dam truth. Children today are indeed the most suppressed class you will ever see, if children have the same rights of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then they should have the right to not be beaten, to not be forced into labor, and to not be subject to suppression by a dominate figure outside the law which so happens to not be the parents, but government. If the government is allowed to declare "abortion" illegal for it violates life, then parenthood violates liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the child.

So if you "Pro Life" fools still think that making Abortion illegal is "Ok", then by all means I motion to have The Children Protection Services to take charge of all children under the age of 7 into protected care. Open educational and care services, require the parents to pay X% of income to said services for "proper" child raising. Then place strict security, rules, and 3rd party surveillance on the staff to make sure the children are the least susceptible from inner and outside violent forces that could traumatize or indoctrinate these children into a mindset they themselves don't wish to accept. No religion, no physical punishment, and no indoctrination by parents to keep silent.

They are not "your" kids you do not own them if they have the same rights as you, therefor your indoctrinating and traumatizing actions are indeed illegal and unnecessary. They, the children, are not your property, they are not your slaves.

your: belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
Belong/belonging: to be the property of a person or thing
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

If a fetus is a person then from birth to legal age of 16-18/21 they must be taken into a proper care service to avoid and unnecessary trauma during their years of development.

Go ahead flame on, but its the truth you want to give rights to a fetus who most likely has no idea what it is or whats going on. Then by all means children must be taken care of outside the normal parenting system for we already can see what happens when normal parents try to raise a child, they go on murder sprees, they steal, get raped, get beaten, become rapist, commit other violent acts, etc...

You parents are all shameful for the way you treat kids. Give a parent a child and they do terrible job raising it, if they did a good job then there wouldn't be violence isn't it obvious.

(btw, this is literally the same logic used by gun grabbers to ban guns... They kill people, they get into violent peoples hands, etc... parent is person, child is gun)

With that I rest my Anti-Anti abortion rant.
ike490
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you get pregnant and have a child then thats your responsibility. rape is a special case. yes it happens and there are other options then abortion like adoption. i think abortion is murder and i think its sick that people even consider killing a child.

At 1/14/2015 2:18:14 AM, BDPershing wrote:
\

*warning Rant incoming*

How I see it,
Its the woman's choice
Anti abortion is pro children suffering, for it forces people who are not able to take care or afford a child at that time. Forcing a child to be born in this condition will place them in a danger of being seized by child protection services, harsh living conditions, lack of parent contact, and possible rejection by the forced parent who may have gotten pregnant by a rapist. Leading to this child's development to be a harsh neglected life, compared to a child who was born willingly.

If your anti abortion you Have to be Pro children rights, children are most vulnerable when in parents hands. They have the potential of being raped, beaten, forced into unwanted labor, etc... Which only makes this next point more valid if Abortion is not allowed then all parents should not have rights to their children due to the potential of neglect and violent by the parents themselves, therefor the children must be raised in structured environment away from their parents till a proper age at which they are allowed to choose to live with their parents, recommended age of 16-18 minimum. They would be raised in a strictly regulated facility that is closely monitored for staff abuse or mistreatment.

I know i'm going to get flamed by that last comment, but its the dam truth. Children today are indeed the most suppressed class you will ever see, if children have the same rights of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then they should have the right to not be beaten, to not be forced into labor, and to not be subject to suppression by a dominate figure outside the law which so happens to not be the parents, but government. If the government is allowed to declare "abortion" illegal for it violates life, then parenthood violates liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the child.

So if you "Pro Life" fools still think that making Abortion illegal is "Ok", then by all means I motion to have The Children Protection Services to take charge of all children under the age of 7 into protected care. Open educational and care services, require the parents to pay X% of income to said services for "proper" child raising. Then place strict security, rules, and 3rd party surveillance on the staff to make sure the children are the least susceptible from inner and outside violent forces that could traumatize or indoctrinate these children into a mindset they themselves don't wish to accept. No religion, no physical punishment, and no indoctrination by parents to keep silent.

They are not "your" kids you do not own them if they have the same rights as you, therefor your indoctrinating and traumatizing actions are indeed illegal and unnecessary. They, the children, are not your property, they are not your slaves.

your: belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
Belong/belonging: to be the property of a person or thing
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

If a fetus is a person then from birth to legal age of 16-18/21 they must be taken into a proper care service to avoid and unnecessary trauma during their years of development.

Go ahead flame on, but its the truth you want to give rights to a fetus who most likely has no idea what it is or whats going on. Then by all means children must be taken care of outside the normal parenting system for we already can see what happens when normal parents try to raise a child, they go on murder sprees, they steal, get raped, get beaten, become rapist, commit other violent acts, etc...

You parents are all shameful for the way you treat kids. Give a parent a child and they do terrible job raising it, if they did a good job then there wouldn't be violence isn't it obvious.

(btw, this is literally the same logic used by gun grabbers to ban guns... They kill people, they get into violent peoples hands, etc... parent is person, child is gun)

With that I rest my Anti-Anti abortion rant.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:19:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not anti-abortion at all, and I sympathize with the feelings you're expressing in your rant.

But you asked "why" so here's why: something to keep in mind is the fact that quite often people who are anti-abortion truly view a fetus as a child. They're not kidding. That's really their view. That the child is living at all is most important- it's quality of life is secondary (much like many would rather come out of a car accident with their life and no legs than just die). The disgust they feel from the "murder" of a "child" is much, much stronger than the disgust they might feel from the millions of children that would be impossible to adopt, living in orphanages all their childhood days, if every aborted fetus really were instead given up for adoption as they often wish would happen.

Then when it comes to pregnant women- well the child's life is more important than the woman's health and safety and desires and goals, etc. That's because the child is an innocent- the woman is not. But that's why some make distinctions in cases of rape- then the woman is an innocent too and her rights are also important. But if she chose to have sex, she is not an innocent and her rights to health, safety, autonomy, etc., are forfeited in favor of the innocent child's much more important right to life (any life- life at all).
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:18:14 AM, BDPershing wrote:
*warning Rant incoming*

How I see it,
Its the woman's choice
Anti abortion is pro children suffering, for it forces people who are not able to take care or afford a child at that time. Forcing a child to be born in this condition will place them in a danger of being seized by child protection services, harsh living conditions, lack of parent contact, and possible rejection by the forced parent who may have gotten pregnant by a rapist. Leading to this child's development to be a harsh neglected life, compared to a child who was born willingly.

If not existing > than the hardships of a less than perfect life, then the child can kill themself. But at least at that point, it would be their choice to end their own life, and not forced upon them by someone else.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

If not existing > than the hardships of a less than perfect life, then the child can kill themself. But at least at that point, it would be their choice to end their own life, and not forced upon them by someone else.

This assumes that the fetus knows its alive or knows what it is, for we perceive a person as being self aware. If its not self aware it is not a person...
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:19:54 PM, Oryus wrote:
I'm not anti-abortion at all, and I sympathize with the feelings you're expressing in your rant.

But you asked "why" so here's why: something to keep in mind is the fact that quite often people who are anti-abortion truly view a fetus as a child. They're not kidding. That's really their view. That the child is living at all is most important- it's quality of life is secondary (much like many would rather come out of a car accident with their life and no legs than just die). The disgust they feel from the "murder" of a "child" is much, much stronger than the disgust they might feel from the millions of children that would be impossible to adopt, living in orphanages all their childhood days, if every aborted fetus really were instead given up for adoption as they often wish would happen.

Then when it comes to pregnant women- well the child's life is more important than the woman's health and safety and desires and goals, etc. That's because the child is an innocent- the woman is not. But that's why some make distinctions in cases of rape- then the woman is an innocent too and her rights are also important. But if she chose to have sex, she is not an innocent and her rights to health, safety, autonomy, etc., are forfeited in favor of the innocent child's much more important right to life (any life- life at all).

Thank you, I already knew this was the case but its still frustrating for it is mainly the push from religions groups that say abortion is murder, and that the woman "sinned" by even participating in the act. Its sad for religion for the longest time has been looking at woman's as a second class being inferior to men...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

If not existing > than the hardships of a less than perfect life, then the child can kill themself. But at least at that point, it would be their choice to end their own life, and not forced upon them by someone else.

This assumes that the fetus knows its alive or knows what it is, for we perceive a person as being self aware. If its not self aware it is not a person...

A person in a coma is not self aware. Killing them is still murder. A person that is completely drugged out may no longer be self aware, but killing them is still murder. The "self aware" as the measure of being a person is not sound in our society.

But regardless, it doesn't matter if it is self aware or not. Once it is out of the womb, it is self aware and at which point, it can choose at any time "being non-existent is better than this" and kill itself. If they choose "this life isn't that great, but it is better than being dead" then it was a benefit to let them live. If they choose the other way, they can make it so with a piece of rope.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:34:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:04:22 PM, ike490 wrote:
If you get pregnant and have a child then thats your responsibility. rape is a special case. yes it happens and there are other options then abortion like adoption. i think abortion is murder and i think its sick that people even consider killing a child.

this is still condemning the child to a hard life even when placed in a orphanage or in other words "adoption".
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:47:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:33:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A person in a coma is not self aware. Killing them is still murder. A person that is completely drugged out may no longer be self aware, but killing them is still murder. The "self aware" as the measure of being a person is not sound in our society.

But regardless, it doesn't matter if it is self aware or not. Once it is out of the womb, it is self aware and at which point, it can choose at any time "being non-existent is better than this" and kill itself. If they choose "this life isn't that great, but it is better than being dead" then it was a benefit to let them live. If they choose the other way, they can make it so with a piece of rope.

If your infested with a parasite that lives in said womb, would you take it to term?
If the person is a veggie while in a coma then sure kill him for it wont be murder it would be mercy...
Your also still assuming once its out of said womb it is aware, is it? Can you show it knows what it is and whats going on? Can you remember those details from your early life? I think we all can say the earliest one could remember is 2.5-4 years old and this is only for the fortunate, some would be lucky to remember there 5th birthday, but from birth to age 2 at the earliest we could assume a child has to freaking idea what is going on or what it is... But again ignoring my argument of if your anti abortion then you pro children rights. Which means you should be in favor for children to be taken from birth till they are able to decide for themselves effectively, 16-21, into a protect child raising care center away from parents for we can see what happens when parents try to raise a child and it is never good...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:18:14 AM, BDPershing wrote:
*warning Rant incoming*

How I see it,
Its the woman's choice
Anti abortion is pro children suffering, for it forces people who are not able to take care or afford a child at that time. Forcing a child to be born in this condition will place them in a danger of being seized by child protection services, harsh living conditions, lack of parent contact, and possible rejection by the forced parent who may have gotten pregnant by a rapist. Leading to this child's development to be a harsh neglected life, compared to a child who was born willingly.

If your anti abortion you Have to be Pro children rights, children are most vulnerable when in parents hands. They have the potential of being raped, beaten, forced into unwanted labor, etc... Which only makes this next point more valid if Abortion is not allowed then all parents should not have rights to their children due to the potential of neglect and violent by the parents themselves, therefor the children must be raised in structured environment away from their parents till a proper age at which they are allowed to choose to live with their parents, recommended age of 16-18 minimum. They would be raised in a strictly regulated facility that is closely monitored for staff abuse or mistreatment.

I know i'm going to get flamed by that last comment, but its the dam truth. Children today are indeed the most suppressed class you will ever see, if children have the same rights of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then they should have the right to not be beaten, to not be forced into labor, and to not be subject to suppression by a dominate figure outside the law which so happens to not be the parents, but government. If the government is allowed to declare "abortion" illegal for it violates life, then parenthood violates liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the child.

So if you "Pro Life" fools still think that making Abortion illegal is "Ok", then by all means I motion to have The Children Protection Services to take charge of all children under the age of 7 into protected care. Open educational and care services, require the parents to pay X% of income to said services for "proper" child raising. Then place strict security, rules, and 3rd party surveillance on the staff to make sure the children are the least susceptible from inner and outside violent forces that could traumatize or indoctrinate these children into a mindset they themselves don't wish to accept. No religion, no physical punishment, and no indoctrination by parents to keep silent.

They are not "your" kids you do not own them if they have the same rights as you, therefor your indoctrinating and traumatizing actions are indeed illegal and unnecessary. They, the children, are not your property, they are not your slaves.

your: belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
Belong/belonging: to be the property of a person or thing
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

If a fetus is a person then from birth to legal age of 16-18/21 they must be taken into a proper care service to avoid and unnecessary trauma during their years of development.

Go ahead flame on, but its the truth you want to give rights to a fetus who most likely has no idea what it is or whats going on. Then by all means children must be taken care of outside the normal parenting system for we already can see what happens when normal parents try to raise a child, they go on murder sprees, they steal, get raped, get beaten, become rapist, commit other violent acts, etc...

You parents are all shameful for the way you treat kids. Give a parent a child and they do terrible job raising it, if they did a good job then there wouldn't be violence isn't it obvious.

(btw, this is literally the same logic used by gun grabbers to ban guns... They kill people, they get into violent peoples hands, etc... parent is person, child is gun)

With that I rest my Anti-Anti abortion rant.

bsh1 would argue for FLO (future like ours). Simply put, because there is human potential denying that future life is wrong.
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
bsh1 would argue for FLO (future like ours). Simply put, because there is human potential denying that future life is wrong.

Then to give a child the best chance of success and without suffering we should take way kids from their parents for parents have to potential of screwing it up.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:53:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:49:34 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
bsh1 would argue for FLO (future like ours). Simply put, because there is human potential denying that future life is wrong.

Then to give a child the best chance of success and without suffering we should take way kids from their parents for parents have to potential of screwing it up.

Remember this is his argument (more or less). But quality of life is irrelevant, simply that life is sacred and denying a potential life a future is wrong.

Although what you propose sounds wholly unfeasible regardless.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:54:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:47:04 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:33:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A person in a coma is not self aware. Killing them is still murder. A person that is completely drugged out may no longer be self aware, but killing them is still murder. The "self aware" as the measure of being a person is not sound in our society.

But regardless, it doesn't matter if it is self aware or not. Once it is out of the womb, it is self aware and at which point, it can choose at any time "being non-existent is better than this" and kill itself. If they choose "this life isn't that great, but it is better than being dead" then it was a benefit to let them live. If they choose the other way, they can make it so with a piece of rope.

If your infested with a parasite that lives in said womb, would you take it to term?

1) A fetus is not a parasite. The mother's body creates the placenta so it is the mother that is forcing nutrients into the baby. The baby is at no point, taking anything.

2) Sure, why not, just to give you a different answer.

If the person is a veggie while in a coma then sure kill him for it wont be murder it would be mercy...

1) Feel free to go give your "mercy" to the coma ward at your local hospital and let me know how that works out.

2) Anyone that talks about "mercy" in the same breath as killing other that they are not bound to make those kind of calls falls in a particular group that is batting .000 for benefiting society and people.

Your also still assuming once its out of said womb it is aware, is it? Can you show it knows what it is and whats going on? Can you remember those details from your early life? I think we all can say the earliest one could remember is 2.5-4 years old and this is only for the fortunate, some would be lucky to remember there 5th birthday, but from birth to age 2 at the earliest we could assume a child has to freaking idea what is going on or what it is...

So you believe that if you kidnap and murder your neighbor's 3 year old, you should really only be charged with theft and destruction of property and have to pay back the market value of the items destroyed.

But again ignoring my argument of if your anti abortion then you pro children rights. Which means you should be in favor for children to be taken from birth till they are able to decide for themselves effectively, 16-21, into a protect child raising care center away from parents for we can see what happens when parents try to raise a child and it is never good...

Not really. Pro-children =/= having to support placing them all in government homes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:56:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Remember this is his argument (more or less). But quality of life is irrelevant, simply that life is sacred and denying a potential life a future is wrong.

Although what you propose sounds wholly unfeasible regardless.

So suffering is indeed moral, hmm interesting. Guess those staving children deserved it the must love being alive.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:57:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:56:27 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Remember this is his argument (more or less). But quality of life is irrelevant, simply that life is sacred and denying a potential life a future is wrong.

Although what you propose sounds wholly unfeasible regardless.

So suffering is indeed moral, hmm interesting. Guess those staving children deserved it the must love being alive.

lol talking for myself, suffering is unavoidable. And if given a choice, perhaps suffering is preferable to non-existence.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:58:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:56:27 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Remember this is his argument (more or less). But quality of life is irrelevant, simply that life is sacred and denying a potential life a future is wrong.

Although what you propose sounds wholly unfeasible regardless.

So suffering is indeed moral, hmm interesting. Guess those staving children deserved it the must love being alive.

That is a pretty bad straw man.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote::
lol talking for myself, suffering is unavoidable. And if given a choice, perhaps suffering is preferable to non-existence.

So there isn't a heaven?? O god I feel sorry for those poor souls who pray saying that there is a better place beyond death... Hue hue
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:03:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:00:26 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:07 PM, Bennett91 wrote::
lol talking for myself, suffering is unavoidable. And if given a choice, perhaps suffering is preferable to non-existence.

So there isn't a heaven?? O god I feel sorry for those poor souls who pray saying that there is a better place beyond death... Hue hue

What does this have to do with what I said?
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:13:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

1) A fetus is not a parasite. The mother's body creates the placenta so it is the mother that is forcing nutrients into the baby. The baby is at no point, taking anything.

Parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
I think we all can agree that a baby isn't forced to take the nutrients from the host by the host, but the host suffers from the fact its being fed upon.

2) Sure, why not, just to give you a different answer.

1) Feel free to go give your "mercy" to the coma ward at your local hospital and let me know how that works out.
You avoid the word veggie it seems, limited functions and brain activity, some normal coma patents do show active brain activity including those shown when dreaming... A veggie does not show these responses.

2) Anyone that talks about "mercy" in the same breath as killing other that they are not bound to make those kind of calls falls in a particular group that is batting .000 for benefiting society and people.
To allow suffer is to be immoral is i know the guy is going to die in a long painful death, then ill take the moral road and show mercy but ending it a quicky as possible.

So you believe that if you kidnap and murder your neighbor's 3 year old, you should really only be charged with theft and destruction of property and have to pay back the market value of the items destroyed.
Well its true a kid is property and has no right of his/her own correct? If its a person then no one has the right to call them property of another unless you wish to have slavery again...

Not really. Pro-children =/= having to support placing them all in government homes.
If they are a person then the have equal rights therefor to allow them to develop without the unlawful slavery restrictions placed by parents it would be wise to place them in this care while forcing the birth parents to pay for the raising of this child...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:17:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:54:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:04 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:33:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A person in a coma is not self aware. Killing them is still murder. A person that is completely drugged out may no longer be self aware, but killing them is still murder. The "self aware" as the measure of being a person is not sound in our society.

But regardless, it doesn't matter if it is self aware or not. Once it is out of the womb, it is self aware and at which point, it can choose at any time "being non-existent is better than this" and kill itself. If they choose "this life isn't that great, but it is better than being dead" then it was a benefit to let them live. If they choose the other way, they can make it so with a piece of rope.

If your infested with a parasite that lives in said womb, would you take it to term?

1) A fetus is not a parasite. The mother's body creates the placenta so it is the mother that is forcing nutrients into the baby. The baby is at no point, taking anything.


That's a little unfair, don't you think?

You say this as if the mother consciously makes a placenta and consciously forces nutrients into a fetus. In reality, the presence of the fetus makes the mother's body react this way, out of her control, and to her detriment if she doesn't ingest enough nutrients for both her and the fetus.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:21:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:13:38 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

1) A fetus is not a parasite. The mother's body creates the placenta so it is the mother that is forcing nutrients into the baby. The baby is at no point, taking anything.

Parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
I think we all can agree that a baby isn't forced to take the nutrients from the host by the host, but the host suffers from the fact its being fed upon.

Actually no, the mother's body creates the bridge that sends nutrients to the baby. Like a tape worm bites on and digs in to get nutrients. For the baby, the mother's body reaches out to the baby to force nutrients to it. So, no, it does not meet the definition.


2) Sure, why not, just to give you a different answer.

1) Feel free to go give your "mercy" to the coma ward at your local hospital and let me know how that works out.
You avoid the word veggie it seems, limited functions and brain activity, some normal coma patents do show active brain activity including those shown when dreaming... A veggie does not show these responses.

Sure, try that too. I'm sure it will go better with the police.


2) Anyone that talks about "mercy" in the same breath as killing other that they are not bound to make those kind of calls falls in a particular group that is batting .000 for benefiting society and people.
To allow suffer is to be immoral is i know the guy is going to die in a long painful death, then ill take the moral road and show mercy but ending it a quicky as possible.

Your morals are poor and thankfully subjective. You will experience suffering in your life, ergo, (under your moral code) it would be the moral high road for me to kill you first chance I got (so long as my killing of you resulted in less suffering then you would have experienced through out the entirety of your life, not a hard bar to get over).


So you believe that if you kidnap and murder your neighbor's 3 year old, you should really only be charged with theft and destruction of property and have to pay back the market value of the items destroyed.
Well its true a kid is property and has no right of his/her own correct?

Sorry, but even children have the right to life. They may have fewer rights, but they do not have no rights.

If its a person then no one has the right to call them property of another unless you wish to have slavery again...

Not really. Pro-children =/= having to support placing them all in government homes.
If they are a person then the have equal rights therefor to allow them to develop without the unlawful slavery restrictions placed by parents it would be wise to place them in this care while forcing the birth parents to pay for the raising of this child...

That's a black and white fallacy. You are supposing that they must either have all rights, or no rights at all.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:17:54 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:54:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:04 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:33:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A person in a coma is not self aware. Killing them is still murder. A person that is completely drugged out may no longer be self aware, but killing them is still murder. The "self aware" as the measure of being a person is not sound in our society.

But regardless, it doesn't matter if it is self aware or not. Once it is out of the womb, it is self aware and at which point, it can choose at any time "being non-existent is better than this" and kill itself. If they choose "this life isn't that great, but it is better than being dead" then it was a benefit to let them live. If they choose the other way, they can make it so with a piece of rope.

If your infested with a parasite that lives in said womb, would you take it to term?

1) A fetus is not a parasite. The mother's body creates the placenta so it is the mother that is forcing nutrients into the baby. The baby is at no point, taking anything.


That's a little unfair, don't you think?

You say this as if the mother consciously makes a placenta and consciously forces nutrients into a fetus. In reality, the presence of the fetus makes the mother's body react this way, out of her control, and to her detriment if she doesn't ingest enough nutrients for both her and the fetus.

Not really. While we can argue the mother's conscious wants, we cannot claim that the baby is stealing because the mother's own body is doing something she doesn't want. That would be like my spouse giving away my money and me calling the police on the person that the money was given to.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Impact94
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:50:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Silent Scream, by Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. (may disturb some viewers)
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, abortion is a sad topic to deal with, but I believe this is a debate about infahnts' rights and furthermore I believe it is ignorant to deny this because this is clearly the issue at hand:
-Are we, or are we not, taking the life of an unborn child?
-How do we know?
-How do we really know?
-And if you said that you did know, would you bet the lives of other people on it? Because that is what you are doing, you're hedging a bet on an educated guess (at most) that you are not taking the life of an unborn child.

And in a way, that could be considered denial. Rationalizing something gruesome in order to find an escape from an unwanted situation.
This, in psychology, is called the K"bler-Ross model, otherwise known as the five stages of grief. It begins with denial of the situation, then anger of the situation, and then bargaining - the looking for of a way out, and in this case turning to abortion as the solution.

As for womens' choice, there are better options for prevention, so that this situation never happens, and that this scenario need never be dealt with; these options can include birth control, condoms, plan B pills, and other methods to avoid the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. Some places offer free condoms, so being broke poor would not stop someone from having access to these items.
I wholeheartedly sympathize that having an unwanted pregnancy can be emotionally traumatizing, especially if it is the result of rape; in this case, talk to people, get help, seek a psychiatrist, seek therapy, seek medication, seek anything.
But please, please, please I urge you, please don't take the seemingly easy way out through abortion; it's an instant fix, but you never know how you may feel about it in the long run (many women who have abortions experience even more depression later post-abortion) and you don't know if your views on abortion will ever change, making you feel like you have to live with yourself (like a tattoo, the abortion is permanent and can never change, except there is a chance it may carry much more weight than a tattoo); it isn't worth it; there are compassionate non-judgmental people who can help.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:54:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 9:23:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 9:17:54 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:54:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:47:04 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:33:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:27:07 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:24:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
A person in a coma is not self aware. Killing them is still murder. A person that is completely drugged out may no longer be self aware, but killing them is still murder. The "self aware" as the measure of being a person is not sound in our society.

But regardless, it doesn't matter if it is self aware or not. Once it is out of the womb, it is self aware and at which point, it can choose at any time "being non-existent is better than this" and kill itself. If they choose "this life isn't that great, but it is better than being dead" then it was a benefit to let them live. If they choose the other way, they can make it so with a piece of rope.

If your infested with a parasite that lives in said womb, would you take it to term?

1) A fetus is not a parasite. The mother's body creates the placenta so it is the mother that is forcing nutrients into the baby. The baby is at no point, taking anything.


That's a little unfair, don't you think?

You say this as if the mother consciously makes a placenta and consciously forces nutrients into a fetus. In reality, the presence of the fetus makes the mother's body react this way, out of her control, and to her detriment if she doesn't ingest enough nutrients for both her and the fetus.

Not really. While we can argue the mother's conscious wants, we cannot claim that the baby is stealing because the mother's own body is doing something she doesn't want. That would be like my spouse giving away my money and me calling the police on the person that the money was given to.

Full disclosure- I don't honestly care much about whether we can rightfully call a fetus a "parasite." I mostly took issue with the characterization of women's bodies/the creation of placenta as a conscious choice.

But I'll roll with it.

I think it's fair to say most parasites are not consciously making the choice to parasitize just as most hosts are not making the choice to be fed upon. Both are just doing what comes naturally to them just as a fetus does what comes naturally to it: cause a reaction in the mother's body which makes the placenta grow, receives nutrients from the mother whether she lives or dies from it, and grows inside her until it can be born and (rooting reflex) drink milk from her breasts. That's all it can do.

Meanwhile, the mother gains nothing from this relationship and can in fact be greatly harmed by it.

"an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."

The fetus needn't consciously want to receive or seek to steal nutrients in order to benefit from it and be characterized as a willing parasite. The mother's body needn't react in a way which rejects the fetus (although sometimes mother's bodies do just that and also, the best parasites cause the least harm to their host anyway- thus prolonging their own life on their host) in order to characterize her as a reluctant host.

By all accounts, a fetus, and newborn for that matter, seem like a classic parasite to me.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 11:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So much confusion in this thread and so little time to untangle the mess.

The claim that a child in the womb is a parasite has been refuted so many times now, it's too tiresome and boring to consider it any longer. We (society) have moved on far beyond that now. We already have laws which establish the biological fact that a child in the womb is "a human being" and those laws also already make it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 1:07:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
These are my final points on this,

-It will kill the economy, increase spending and government support to orphanages increasing the population of orphans by millions making a new generation that have an increase chance of falling into the poverty class creating more burden on the system.

-It will force more children growing up in orphanages increasing child suffering and growing up without parents. Which results in increase chance of aggression and the feeling of reject within the child that will draw them to crime.

-If you are going to give the right of life to a a fetus who has no choice, then you must support government controlled child raising for the preservation of child's rights as human beings in America, which is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Which parents themselves infringe upon every day during child raising. You cannot have a double standard of "Well a fetus has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"", but once their born they lose the right to the "liberty" and "happiness" part for themselves, and are forced to deal with the pressure from parents forcing their own ideals, without allowing the child to develop their own idea of liberty and happiness.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 1:38:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will debate you on the topic: "In general, abortion is morally permissible." I'll take Con...

Let me know if you're interested.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 2:41:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 1:38:35 AM, bsh1 wrote:
I will debate you on the topic: "In general, abortion is morally permissible." I'll take Con...

Let me know if you're interested.

I have been challenged to this debate already (about a few hours ago), but I think people fail to realize the double standard they are participating in this. A infant/fetus regardless of age is argued to have god given rights which so happen to be listed as "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If this is indeed true, then child, regardless of age, must have these rights. But i'm sure every modern parent understands you cant give a child "liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for they will ruin the beginning of their life. This is forced indoctrination, you have no idea what the kid really wants and if he/she makes it clear and you deny it labeling is as incorrect by your standards you are infringing on the humans god given rights. By infringing on these rights who have not issued a double standard, I mentioned slavery for that's what its is you consider the child does not have the right to liberty and happiness and force them to do your will. Not to mention "claiming" this child as yours, belonging to, etc... is considering the child property. What is a slave?

Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Its sanctioned by government making it legal, therefor it is today's "legal" slavery.

The argument of morality is a coin flip, if you believe this is immoral than you must accept the consequences for it and deem them "moral", which are,
-Child Abuse
-Children Suffering
-Children Death by Starvation
-Children murders
-Children Indoctrination
-Children Violence
- etc...

Of course people will refute these truths even though these are indeed the outcomes that come with forced birth, calling them also Immoral. How can a "moral" act that spawns "immoral" outcomes be deemed "moral". About murder, there is roughly 289,000 women who die due to birth, if we are going to state abortion is murder then 289,000 kids have committed murder and should be placed on trail and sentenced to prison.... around 10 million suffer injury, infection or disease which could be called intentional again something the child must be placed on trail for. But the double standard states "they don't know anything", "they didn't mean to", you know how many have stated this but did not get away... If they have the same rights as all of us do then they are subject to the same justice system as any other human being would, Regardless of age.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 3:17:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:18:14 AM, BDPershing wrote:
*warning Rant incoming*

How I see it,
Its the woman's choice
Anti abortion is pro children suffering, for it forces people who are not able to take care or afford a child at that time. Forcing a child to be born in this condition will place them in a danger of being seized by child protection services, harsh living conditions, lack of parent contact, and possible rejection by the forced parent who may have gotten pregnant by a rapist. Leading to this child's development to be a harsh neglected life, compared to a child who was born willingly.

If your anti abortion you Have to be Pro children rights, children are most vulnerable when in parents hands. They have the potential of being raped, beaten, forced into unwanted labor, etc... Which only makes this next point more valid if Abortion is not allowed then all parents should not have rights to their children due to the potential of neglect and violent by the parents themselves, therefor the children must be raised in structured environment away from their parents till a proper age at which they are allowed to choose to live with their parents, recommended age of 16-18 minimum. They would be raised in a strictly regulated facility that is closely monitored for staff abuse or mistreatment.

I know i'm going to get flamed by that last comment, but its the dam truth. Children today are indeed the most suppressed class you will ever see, if children have the same rights of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then they should have the right to not be beaten, to not be forced into labor, and to not be subject to suppression by a dominate figure outside the law which so happens to not be the parents, but government. If the government is allowed to declare "abortion" illegal for it violates life, then parenthood violates liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the child.

So if you "Pro Life" fools still think that making Abortion illegal is "Ok", then by all means I motion to have The Children Protection Services to take charge of all children under the age of 7 into protected care. Open educational and care services, require the parents to pay X% of income to said services for "proper" child raising. Then place strict security, rules, and 3rd party surveillance on the staff to make sure the children are the least susceptible from inner and outside violent forces that could traumatize or indoctrinate these children into a mindset they themselves don't wish to accept. No religion, no physical punishment, and no indoctrination by parents to keep silent.

They are not "your" kids you do not own them if they have the same rights as you, therefor your indoctrinating and traumatizing actions are indeed illegal and unnecessary. They, the children, are not your property, they are not your slaves.

your: belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
Belong/belonging: to be the property of a person or thing
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

If a fetus is a person then from birth to legal age of 16-18/21 they must be taken into a proper care service to avoid and unnecessary trauma during their years of development.

Go ahead flame on, but its the truth you want to give rights to a fetus who most likely has no idea what it is or whats going on. Then by all means children must be taken care of outside the normal parenting system for we already can see what happens when normal parents try to raise a child, they go on murder sprees, they steal, get raped, get beaten, become rapist, commit other violent acts, etc...

You parents are all shameful for the way you treat kids. Give a parent a child and they do terrible job raising it, if they did a good job then there wouldn't be violence isn't it obvious.

(btw, this is literally the same logic used by gun grabbers to ban guns... They kill people, they get into violent peoples hands, etc... parent is person, child is gun)

With that I rest my Anti-Anti abortion rant.
I think abortion should be legal up to the age of 7. Untill the persoality is fully formed, the fetus really is not a person.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 3:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 11:59:11 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
So much confusion in this thread and so little time to untangle the mess.

The claim that a child in the womb is a parasite has been refuted so many times now, it's too tiresome and boring to consider it any longer. We (society) have moved on far beyond that now. We already have laws which establish the biological fact that a child in the womb is "a human being" and those laws also already make it a crime of MURDER to kill one in a criminal act.

it's really not confusing. People are in rebellion against God and in that rebellion they will do heinous things such as killing an innocent child.