Okay, I am not going to attempt to argue with anything Pinky has said, because I know better, now... Just one question: I know that what you posted wasn't written by you, but if you disagreed with what it said, why did you post it? And if you
do agree with it, then how would pointing out that you didn't write it justify it?
:
Originally posted by Sydney
If you argue that abortion isn't destroying a life, but preventing a life from starting, does that mean that you support abortion right up until one second before birth?
|
As I have already said, Abortion is not possible that late. Abortion is only possible during the early stages of pregnancy. I'm not sure the exact point where it becomes impossible, but once past that point, if the baby is lost, then it is known as a Stillbirth.
Besides, one has to draw the line somewhere. The baby develops from a single fertilised egg to a baby over a period of nine months. A single fertilised egg is (I am 100% sure of this) not a conscious being. A baby is. There is no definite point that one can point to and say "There! It's a baby now!" We just don't have the technology to find out when it becomes conscious, and so we must put it down to how we define a "child". The way I define it, the foetus is NOT a child, and therefore you are not killing a person, you are stopping a person from coming into existence. If you try and see it from this point of view now, you will see why objecting to Abortion is just silly (from this point of view). In fact, I've already explained it...
:
Originally posted by ODDBODD:
My distant aunty was raped and had a girl. She is older than me and is a beutiful, talented and smart woman who takes care of her mother and has a husband already with 2 kids.
What if my aunty had an abortion which was the hardest thing to do in her life? That women will be killed, her husband will marry someone else, her children wont have a chance at life and all her good spirit and heart will just be.....nothing.
|
I've already said this twice, but since you appear to have ignored it, I will say it again:
You argue that Abortions shouldn't be allowed because they might prevent someone like your cousin from being born. But, by this reasoning, Contraception should also be banned (since it might prevent a great person from being born), and we should advocate having babies as much as possible (since not having babies as much as possible might prevent a great person from being born). Can't you see how ridiculous this is? Where do we draw the line?
Okay, just one, then...
:
Originally posted by Pinkhaired Mudokon CWR:
So how can you say that abortion is not painful and the women who kills her child will not go through depression?
|
I did not say this. Do not accuse me of being a liar when you so blatantly lie yourself. I said that Abortions do not cause Cancer, I never said that they were not painful and traumatic.
:
Originally posted by Statikk HDM:
Alright, I know some here believe in evolution so think of how old the world is dated by evolutionists: Billions of figging' years upon years. You don't think humans have been around for a long time, right? Only twenty or thirty thousand years, right? And the industrial revolution came about only a few hundred, correct? All the "bad things" for the environmen happened then. Over 99 percent of all creatures to be around are extinct. We will not do jakk shit to mother ature the scars shall heal. Acres upon acres are used for golfing, the shittiest sport in the world to play or watch besides soccer in my opinion, you could turn that into housing. People can live in tibet, the gobi desert etceter, and raise incredible amounts of food feasibly by the green revolution. If people would use things like "frankkenfood" and specil fertilizers and crops, production of food would skyrocket! If everybody in the whole world would swear off golfing and soccer and pointless nascar races we'd have a hell of a lot of surplus lands where the homeless and the unwanted children or whatever you define them as can live. With the green revolution, frankenfoods, biodomes etc., we could have a lot of land to grow stuff on and live on. We could feed 135 billion people with the crops grown with technology known now, much more with further technologies and with other land raise amazing amounts of meat animals. All we have to do is work for about 50 years to perfect certain known agricultural breakthroughs and swear off golf, polo, the sports people really don't like. The human race would vote every ten years to eliminate a really shitty sport. Hell this would be way mor enterrtaining than the presidential elections" Water polo will never go, eliminate tennis! Shitty sport that takes entirely too much land!" We can do it people! As long ass we all forget peples race and gender and religion and work together for thhe common good of all man and women kind, Oh forget it, that will never happen. Slaughter the innocent!
|
All technically true. All also totally irrelevant...
:
Originally posted by ODDBODD:
if the mother isn't stable, why doesn't the child go up for adoption instead of destroying the baby's chance of life.
|
Overpopulation. Don't mean to sound heartless, but there it is...
Phew! Quote-heavy today... That'll teach me to not come online for a few days...