I was reading over some arguments, when I saw some things that went against usual Christian logic. Apparently, against popular beliefs, you do not need to be a Christian to go to Christian heaven. This is just one example of ignorance about your own religion. So, I ask, do you theist know everything, or at least the fundamentals, of your religion? If you do not, how can you justify fully devoting yourself to said religion?
That is your personal beliefs, I on the other hand believe that abortion is fine, if the parents are against it. If they don't want the child then it is unlikely they would be proper to it. Condom's are medicine now? You may be correct, it may not defend ALL the time, but I am counting "Making sure your partner does not have STDs" as "roper preconditions".
It seems like no one knows what adoption is anymore. Also again your forgetting what night stands or other "flings" where your partner might not care if you get an STD.
May you say were it says they are flexible? If it does not say, it is positive to assume that they are not. I will also research this, in the case I am incorrect here. And the Christian moral is contradicted in itself...
As you pointed out while it is illegal to murder you can do it in self defence; basically the moral of the story is in all actions be selfless.
True, it is possible, but that does not make it morally wrong.
It isn't, but it also isn't a very healthy situatuon to, excuse the phrasing, get yourself into.
It seems like no one knows what adoption is anymore. Also again your forgetting what night stands or other "flings" where your partner might not care if you get an STD.
Since people are on the topic of sex before marriage and STDs and stuff...
Citing one night stands as a reason that sex is bad, is a little...off I think. I agree, one night stands offer a higher chance of STDs. However, sex before marriage, and one night stands are different.
One night stands are more like sex before....getting to know someone at all.
Moral: Be responsible. Sex rocks, get tested. Maybe get to know the person a little so you aren't a huge manwhore/whore? haha
What's the big deal about? It's only a foetus. Also:
In a very real sense, "life" does not begin at conception since both egg and sperm are "alive". However, the potential for a new and distinct human being begins at conception. A pregnancy is defined as the implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb.[28]} This distinction is important since modern scientific research suggests that well over 50% and more likely 75-90% of all fertilized eggs are discarded before they implant. An abortion by definition ends a pregnancy. At least 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and mostly within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Following the pro-life logic, God allows anywhere from 25-75% of children to die before they are ever born. There has been a noticeable lack of campaigning directed towards stemming this appalling tide of infant death.
The big deal is the potential that fetus may have in life. To destroy something that has the potential to grow and possibly change the world, out of fear from your own stupidity is wrong. If yo're stupid enough to get pregnant than you have an obligation to the unborn child to follow through. I am, of course, exempting extreme circumstances from this arguement so do not bring up rape.
If we're talking about potential in life then consider this: [b]How do you know its good potential?[/] That foetus could go on to do horrible things equally as much as it could do great ones. Also, on a similar topic - don't you think we should destroy all foetuses with hereditary diseases? We could completely wipe out MS, Huntingtons, etc.
If we're talking about potential in life then consider this: [b]How do you know its good potential?[/] That foetus could go on to do horrible things equally as much as it could do great ones.
What kind of an argument is that? For the present it is a totally innocent life. Even if it doesn't do great things, it should have a chance. We can't kill all but the great. Even if he does become the next Hitler, you're not in the right because you couldn't possibly have known that.
Also, on a similar topic - don't you think we should destroy all foetuses with hereditary diseases? We could completely wipe out MS, Huntingtons, etc.
*Doesn't mention Hitler* I believe that fetuses - all fetuses - are humans with human rights. I'm not sure they become what we could call a person at the moment of conception, but I do think we have to act like they are. They might not be "human" until later, but if they are a growing baby girl or boy the second the cells split, It's wrong to kill them.
You are also wrong. At the price of what I believe would be millions of deaths, you would accomplish this for a generation- if you could somehow get all the pro-lifers to abort their kids, too. After that, negative mutations would spring up and you'd have to do it again.
Individual human lives are worthless in the long run. To at least partially purify ourselves of horrible genetic defects and diseases I would destroy as many foetuses as I had to. To remove Huntington's (the only hereditary disease that is caused by a dominant allele) I would consider a few thousand foetuses a small price.
Individual human lives are worthless in the long run.
I see. When we make our own morals, murder becomes OK. Nevermind that the human you are killing doesn't agree.
To at least partially purify ourselves of horrible genetic defects and diseases I would destroy as many foetuses as I had to.
You don't want people to suffer. You think it is more merciful to end their miserable lives now. But what if, if he could choose, the fetus would tell you he would rather live- even if he did have to die young or go through a little extra trouble in life?
I'm thinking about the lesser of two evils. By sacrificing the few, we can save the many. It is a horrible deed and one that, by my own admission, sickens me to the very core of my being. However, suffering in constant agony and dying an awful death - then passing this fate on to your children - to me seems even worse.
However, suffering in constant agony and dying an awful death - then passing this fate on to your children - to me seems even worse.
Maybe they would agree, but you can't decide for them. I know that I would say I wanted to live. I wouldn't care what the difficulties would be, or what the time limit was. I would want to be given as much chance to live and grow as anyone could give me. If they agree that such an existence is not worth it, they can choose not to have children.
I know I can't decide for them, either, but I think life gives them a greater chance to decide their own fate.
I'm thinking about the lesser of two evils. By sacrificing the few, we can save the many. It is a horrible deed and one that, by my own admission, sickens me to the very core of my being. However, suffering in constant agony and dying an awful death - then passing this fate on to your children - to me seems even worse.
From a logical stand point your arguement is solid and, even credible. Alas morally it is corrupt and manipulative. It would deny human beings their rights in so many ways. Also, to gain this power you would need to control humans as if they were only there for breeding. On this I will say no more. I leave you with this to consider.
"They will look upon me and know I speak evil. Here and now I speak the words of wicked deeds, and yet for a leader these are just the smallest of burdens. Of a choice between two evils, neither is greater or less than the other. So I ask you, how does one choose?"-TK
"Monsters are bred of necessity, to do the things that men cannot. "
I understand how the world will see my idea's and thoughts. I understand that they seem monstrous and are indeed so. And yet, I know it has to be done. Let the burden fall upon my soul - so no other man must bear it.
