As I have done before, I turn to George Carlin to yell about abortion, in a manner that I wish I was allowed to do.
I love this guy I'm so sad he passed. "How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelet!" "You know why? Chickens are decent people!"
So awesome.
Anyway, I don't think that if someone couldn't get an adoption they would instantly throw the kid into an orphanage. An example is New York. There's a huge number of abortions now as it's getting easier and easier to abort.
you don't eat fertilized eggs. they would be filled with blood and embryo goo... or maybe you do. but normal people don't eat bloody chicken in the egg eggs... that being said... an unfertilized egg is not a chicken. please refer to one of the few times I've talked about eggs and sperm earlier in the thread.
46 chromosomes? So you're saying someone with Downs syndrome isn't human?
I personally don't view them as helpful to society and therefore waste that should be put out with the trash. AKA, shot in the head and left in a junkyard.
Sorry, I am that mean.
So, what's then with an X0 woman, or an XXY species? And, there are other chromosome malfunctions that don't make a human "less human" and they are viable and helpful sociery members. And, what about your personal genetic code, it's probable you have 45 chromosomes personally.
The foster system is filled with children who are ready to be adopted. These children have an average age of 7 years old. They generally have some sort of special needs.
Aha, special sort of needs. I've said no one of you wants a broken toy for Christmas, so you let them into foster care and act as if there's no human anymore. When they will grow up, they will be so filled with hatred so they will come for YOU. The way to avoid this is loving them as they are, but this is a loss of money.
For the right to choose or against it the fact remains individuals will make that choice regardless. By keeping the option legal and accessible to them they can at least have the procedure done safely.
I don't really look at it from a right or wrong perspective as much as I look at it from a stance of safety in the methods being used. If you think the mother should put her own life at great risk to have an abortion I don't see how you can continue to argue for the sanctity of life without sounding like a hypocrite.
The argumentation cannot be made. When adoption is a clearly safer and more suitable alternative then there is no need for an abortion in the first place.
Well the main point of an abortion is that the mother won't have to carry around a potential baby and go through labour all for a potential baby which could die anyway.
And why not? It's their fault it happened, and now it's their responsibility to handle the repercussions. Murder is not the answer.
By accident I think meant being *****. So not their fault. And it is not murder. The embryo is not a person with memories and experiences which make up a person and therefore killing it is not murder. It is as much murder as abstaining from having sex. And if you are going to say something about a matter of different probabilities then you are effectively saying it is OK to shoot someone if they are crossing a road since they might get killed by the cars. And anyway, a matter of chance shouldn't make this not a murder. All by your logic of course.
And anyway, why don't we just say, any women who follow te pro life side which has no argument can go through pregnancy and labor for no reason and the rational women who are pro choice can have an abortion.
By keeping the option legal and accessible to them they can at least have the procedure done safely.
Otherwise, making the option illegal makes them criminals with less than acceptable chance to live that through, making penitentiary system free of them. So what?
If you think the mother should put her own life at great risk to have an abortion I don't see how you can continue to argue for the sanctity of life without sounding like a hypocrite.
If a human chooses death over life, that's his own personal problem. Sanctity of life lasts while it's not the one living that chooses death of himself, because he himself defiles his own life. While we still teach that suicide is a mortal sin.
Otherwise, making the option illegal makes them criminals with less than acceptable chance to live that through, making penitentiary system free of them. So what?
I'm not following you here.
If a human chooses death over life, that's his own personal problem. Sanctity of life lasts while it's not the one living that chooses death of himself, because he himself defiles his own life. While we still teach that suicide is a mortal sin.
Your again not making any sense. The mother isn't committing suicide to have an abortion. Having it be illegal just significantly raises the chances of problems occurring. Are you saying you would rather have people preform abortions in a dangerous manner risking more life then if done safely by a professional? As long as it's done in a safe environment the choice would be far less likely to result in death. If you really do care so much about life then I would think the option that would result in less loss of life would be the preferred one.
The mother isn't committing suicide to have an abortion.
She's committing kill of her own child, regardless of its development stage. Therefore she chooses death for someone else.
Are you saying you would rather have people preform abortions in a dangerous manner risking more life then if done safely by a professional? As long as it's done in a safe environment the choice would be far less likely to result in death.
It already results in death, hum. I think it will be at least partially fair for a mother of dead to suffer some of that. If she wouldn't die as a result, she will think more than twice next time, if she will, then oops but she asked for it. I wish neither would happen.
If you really do care so much about life then I would think the option that would result in less loss of life would be the preferred one.
There is an option that results in "less loss of life", and it is to not make an abortion. Isn't it so?
It already results in death, hum. I think it will be at least partially fair for a mother of dead to suffer some of that. If she wouldn't die as a result, she will think more than twice next time, if she will, then oops but she asked for it. I wish neither would happen.
That sounds like your against the idea of it being available legally out of some form of vengeance rather then caring about life.
There is an option that results in "less loss of life", and it is to not make an abortion. Isn't it so?
Not in all cases. Thought it doesn't matter as that isn't an option, legal or not people will have them. The point is which way is safer and at less of a cost.
Even the most religious/anti-choice people must admit that, in some circumstances, abortion is the 'lesser of two evils' - surely?
There was a case (I will have to see if I can find the link) where a very young girl like around 8-9 got pregnant from being molested. She was excommunicated and shunned by her community for having an abortion that would have cost her her life if she carried it to term.
Thats just terrible. First off the girl would have died. Second, the baby would probably have been messed up and died too. Thirdly if the baby did come out would any of them have raised it? paid for it's needs, schooling, and more. And finally hasn't the girl been through enough. It surprises me how people can hurt others without a single thought for their pain.
That sounds like your against the idea of it being available legally out of some form of vengeance rather then caring about life.
What in your opinion is caring about life? I sense a misalign in terms here. But yes, there is terror tactics involved. Still it's better to get someone terrified than lose his life and someone else's.
The point is which way is safer and at less of a cost.
No, the point is whether do or do not. Safety comes second.
Even the most religious/anti-choice people must admit that, in some circumstances, abortion is the 'lesser of two evils' - surely?
*sighs* No Avorne, evil can't be "lesser or greater", it's always evil, and a wrong cannot be righted with intentions. The only case I'd consider worth this is an extrauterine implantation, when a child has zero chance at being born, and even then everything should be done to try to save the child's soul, like baptizing him while he's still alive. IIRC a normal procedure in this case involves removal of the fallopian tube where implantation had happened, therefore it could be ripped open to make a child accessible to do the rites. And even then it's less of an abortion and more of a mother's lifesaver. One priest told me that in such a case they do like this, the kid can't last long but can survive for enough to receive the sacrament. After all, the higher concern of a Christian should be the soul, not the body.
There was a case (I will have to see if I can find the link) where a very young girl like around 8-9 got pregnant from being molested. She was excommunicated and shunned by her community for having an abortion that would have cost her her life if she carried it to term.
A really questionable situation, I'm not the one to give morals here... I'd not shun the girl for this, but rather try to protect her from future molesting. If I am to face such a situation with say my daughter (in case "molesting" means sexual offense by the father, I'm committing sin and guilt is all mine, if not, let's assume someone else molested my daughter), I'd request help from medics, and probably there will be a caesarean at about 6 months, so both lives might get saved. Anyone else's - hard to tell, I'm not the main controlling authority in such a situation.
