Abortion due to gender.

  • Thread starter Thread starter magic_stick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
choy said:
just quoting this because this is what i tell people all the time

we should all be pro-choice. but the choice should happen BEFORE having sex, not after. if someone doesn’t want to get pregnant, then choose not to have sex. yes, there is a choice, and it happens before pulling down your pants, not after

👍
Click to expand...
Even if you accept this argument, it fails for cases where people initially want to have a baby but unforeseen problems develop during pregnancy (like health complications), and for obvious reasons rape or incest.
 
flyingfish said:
Even if you accept this argument, it fails for cases where people initially want to have a baby but unforeseen problems develop during pregnancy (like health complications), and for obvious reasons rape or incest.
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

You, with all your strawman arguments, can not change the fact: that abortion kills babies
 
LittleSoldier said:
So your definition of “whole living human being” does not include anyone who does not have brain function. Right? So what about this guy:

I suppose this means he was a “whole living human being” and then ceased to be a “whole living human being” by becoming a corpse and then became a “whole living human being” once again. That does not make sense, so your definition of “whole living human being” must be incorrect.

Also, I take issue with your statement “we classify things by their actual characteristics.” Where did you come up with such a thing? The truth is that you classify things by their actual characteristics. That doesn’t mean everyone, or even everyone in the medical community, does. “Our” medical definitions? Who is “our?” “All of our standards?” Again, who is “our?” 🤷
Click to expand...
I wrote a whole response but was deleted…let me try to condense it a little. The man was never medically dead. When a doctor declares someone dead, they generally do so when they are unable to start the heart again. This is actually “incorrect” in the at some point after that declaration does that person die, or have complete brain death. Now these are in cases in which the brain is still attached to the spinal cord, thus should a other organs start functioning, there is still a possibility of the organism being alive. Should the brain be removed or the link be broken (decapitation) it matters not that the other organs may still be alive, or even that the brain in the head is still alive until it starves of oxygen and slowly ceases, there would be no chance to attach it and be able to send messages from brain to body. The same is true with an organism that does not have a brain yet or it has not attached to the rest of the body yet (spinal cord where the messages are sent from brain to body and vice versa)

“Also, I take issue with your statement “we classify things by their actual characteristics.” Where did you come up with such a thing?”

You will have to take issue with all scientific discovers up to now then. How do we differentiate between a rock and a cell? A leaf and a bacteria? A virus and a plankton? By their characteristics. All living things have characteristics that differentiate them from nonliving things. Among those living things, according to those characteristics we differentiate them into different kingdoms, such as plants, animals, bacteria, etc. Then we differentiate single celled organisms from multi-cellular organisms from vertibray and invertibray, from organs to cellular organisms, by their functions and their characterisitcs.

An organism is a singular whole being that is composed of organs that work together to keep the whole alive and are composed of living cells, that are organisms on a smaller scale. That is based solely on characteristics and functions. You don’t have to like what conclusion that leaves us with but those are the facts in which you can take god up with for how he created living things on this planet to work in different ways.
 
ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
adj. bab·i·er, bab·i·est
  1. Of or having to do with a baby.
  2. Infantile or childish.
  3. Small in comparison with others of the same kind: baby vegetables.
    tr.v. ba·bied, ba·by·ing, ba·bies
    To pamper like a baby; coddle. See Synonyms at pamper.
 
BrokenFortress said:
Agreed. It’s not like the baby is choosing to use the mother’s resources. The baby has no choice. It’s not like an unborn child jumps into the woman’s womb and takes over. It was conceived by the actions of the parents. Therefore it is their responsibility for the baby.

Even in the case of a rape victim, if a baby is conceived, that baby did not choose to be there. You can’t choose your parents. A baby is not acting maliciously against the mother. It has no choice!

If people can not come to terms with supporting a baby inside the woman’s womb, then they should not be having sex.

I mean really, RobnBob, you make it sound like the baby is consciously trying to attack the mother or something. And a baby is not a parasite. What do you think the uterus is for?
Click to expand...
I never said the fetus had a choice or intent. If fact I have said multiple times that it does not have intent but that it does not matter. All that matters are its actions.

My vagina is for the use of a penis entering it…that does not mean that any joe shmoe can use it.
 
I didn’t think I was implying that any ol’ guy could have sex with you. If you’re referring to rape, well, in that case there are plenty of families out there waiting for babies who would love to love a baby born out of less than ideal circumstances. The baby does not have to die.

But that baby’s actions are not evil. They are not done with intent to hurt. So I don’t understand your argument.

The baby has no voice in the outcome of its life. It has no choice as to whether or not it will be killed. How is that fair? Funny how in America one has rights to act how they want unless it hurts someone else. Unless it’s abortion. Then it’s okay to hurt someone else.
 
shannyk said:
ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
adj. bab·i·er, bab·i·est
  1. Of or having to do with a baby.
  2. Infantile or childish.
  3. Small in comparison with others of the same kind: baby vegetables.
    tr.v. ba·bied, ba·by·ing, ba·bies
    To pamper like a baby; coddle. See Synonyms at pamper.
Click to expand...
I wonder how long it took you to find a dictionary that included that, Webster doesn’t. But okay, if a baby means fetus then I think in some circumstances it’s okay to kill babies. 🤷 It doesn’t matter to me which sequence of letters you use to denote the unborn human, it doesn’t change what it actually is. You might as well redefine the word “God” to include the fetus, it won’t change anything.
 
JReducation said:
Can you prove that this child is not in God’s design?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Of course I can’t prove that. But I don’t see why it matters. I can’t prove that a mountain is not in God’s design, does it mean I can’t carve a road through it if I choose?
 
flyingfish said:
Of course I can’t prove that. But I don’t see why it matters. I can’t prove that a mountain is not in God’s design, does it mean I can’t carve a road through it if I choose?
Click to expand...
You really don’t see the difference between a small human and a mountain? (Hint-- mountains are not alive.)
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
You really don’t see the difference between a small human and a mountain? (Hint-- mountains are not alive.)
Click to expand...
There is a difference of course, but for me it’s consciousness that makes the ultimate difference. I don’t see a fundamental difference between an alive but mindless organism and say a mountain, or a computer, or a microwave. I’m not saying they’re identical, but in the context of the discussion and a right to continued existence they are.
 
flyingfish said:
I wonder how long it took you to find a dictionary that included that, Webster doesn’t. But okay, if a baby means fetus then I think in some circumstances it’s okay to kill babies. 🤷 It doesn’t matter to me which sequence of letters you use to denote the unborn human, it doesn’t change what it actually is. You might as well redefine the word “God” to include the fetus, it won’t change anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, an unborn human being.
You can call it anything you like, still human. .
Little small humans that are preborn are especially vulnerable because they cannot protect themselves. Their own mothers should protect them. 🤷
 
flyingfish said:
There is a difference of course, but for me it’s consciousness that makes the ultimate difference. I don’t see a fundamental difference between an alive but mindless organism and say a mountain, or a computer, or a microwave. I’m not saying they’re identical, but in the context of the discussion and a right to continued existence they are.
Click to expand...
That is your own totally arbitrary criteria.

Are you saying a microwave oven has a right to exist? Or a computer?
If I throw my microwave out and run it over with my car, is that the same thing as killing a little boy because he doesn’t fit your criteria of being alive. :confused:
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
That is your own totally arbitrary criteria.

Are you saying a microwave oven has a right to exist? Or a computer?
If I throw my microwave out and run it over with my car, is that the same thing as killing a little boy because he doesn’t fit your criteria of being alive. :confused:
Click to expand...
If we build a conscious microwave, I would say it would have a right to exist.

I don’t know what you expect from me other than my opinion with an explanation for why I think this. A fetus doesn’t meet my criteria for having a right to exist, I’m not saying it’s not alive, but it has no mind and so I don’t think it has a right to continue living if its mother chooses not to be pregnant anymore.
 
flyingfish said:
If we build a conscious microwave, I would say it would have a right to exist.

I don’t know what you expect from me other than my opinion with an explanation for why I think this. A fetus doesn’t meet my criteria for having a right to exist, I’m not saying it’s not alive, but it has no mind and so I don’t think it has a right to continue living if its mother chooses not to be pregnant anymore.
Click to expand...
That is totally arbitrary. Life and death issues shouldn’t be decided on arbitrary criteria.
By the mother choosing to not be pregnant, that means an innocent human dies.
 
flyingfish said:
I wonder how long it took you to find a dictionary that included that, Webster doesn’t. But okay, if a baby means fetus then I think in some circumstances it’s okay to kill babies. 🤷 It doesn’t matter to me which sequence of letters you use to denote the unborn human, it doesn’t change what it actually is. You might as well redefine the word “God” to include the fetus, it won’t change anything.
Click to expand...
All I did was type baby definition in google. Twas the first entry.

No you’re right, no mater what semantic games you play it won’t change what a baby is.
 
flyingfish said:
Of course I can’t prove that. But I don’t see why it matters. I can’t prove that a mountain is not in God’s design, does it mean I can’t carve a road through it if I choose?
Click to expand...
Just wondering, why don’t you think it matters? Isn’t that what we’re discussing here? The moral aspect of abortion…?

Anyone can do anything that they choose. The question here isn’t “are abortions possible?”, or “are you capable of having an abortion?”, etc. We all know that it can be done. The question is *should *it be done.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
That is totally arbitrary. Life and death issues shouldn’t be decided on arbitrary criteria.
By the mother choosing to not be pregnant, that means an innocent human dies.
Click to expand...
Any criteria you can use are going to be someone’s opinion, or the opinion of a group of people. 🤷

I also don’t see this idea of using the word “innocent” to describe a mindless organism. It’s not like something without a mind can choose what it does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top