My personal opinion is that if a woman was assaulted, then I think it's fair to pay for her. For 'Accidents' I think people should accept that they were morons, I don't want to pay for them, for an abortion or anything else.
Plus, poor people tend to have more children, making them even poorer and increasing all sort of social troubles we have to fight against.
I think the overpopulation crisis he mentioned was about just the West/the USA, which, in case, there really won't be as long as we can exploit the rest of the world's resources. If he meant the world, then yes, there's an overpopulation crisis in many areas.
Should I kill a man who has a chance to take my promotion, when the pay will save me from bankruptcy?
You can't compare a developed, adult man that has very well acheived something already, and probably is a good guy, with a potential life that didn't do anything yet and could become anything. Kill an adult human for a career? No. Kill a mass of cells for an adult woman's further life? Sounds almost like chemotherapy to get rid of a cancer.
maybe people would take the abstinence thing a little more seriously when they've had family members die from back alley abortions. and its their choice to do with their bodies what they wish. I don't want to pay for it tho. My money could be better spent elsewhere. so if they want to make a dumpster baby then that's the risk they take. its like the failed contraception argument. Its hardly any more an accident than it is a given probability with known fatal results.
If carrying the child will kill the mother in someway then by all means get the thing out of her and pay for it with my money. I don't want 2 entities dying when only one had to.
Kill a mass of cells for an adult woman's further life? Sounds almost like chemotherapy to get rid of a cancer.
Almost, but no, because the growth of cells has potential human life, while the cancer does not. That potential, coupled with the fact that cancer is going to kill you way more often than a child, makes the analogy lacking.
Almost, but no, because the growth of cells has potential human life, while the cancer does not. That potential, coupled with the fact that cancer is going to kill you way more often than a child, makes the analogy lacking.
Yet it is more accurate than your analogy. Plus, following your logic, it is immoral for women to not get pregnant all the time, since it is a waste of a potential life for each egg cell that is not fertilized. And every man who is commiting spermocide kills millions of potential lifes. Would you be consistent enough to go that far?
Plus, following your logic, it is immoral for women to not get pregnant all the time, since it is a waste of a potential life for each egg cell that is not fertilized. And every man who is commiting spermocide kills millions of potential lifes. Would you be consistent enough to go that far?
No, actually, that is not my logic at all, because I assert that human life begins from conception, when the sperm and the egg come together. thousands of eggs may have the same genetic coding, and the same goes for sperm, but when they combine, they have formed a perfectly unique entity.
Well, does it stop if the brain activity drops down? No. Why should it start then with brain activity going up?
Life stops when brain activity reaches zero. So life starts at least when brain activity starts. Although its not until some time later that the brain is really capable of anything.
Mine is not the position of defending "otential" life. It is the position of defending "actual" life. a sperm without being coupled to an egg and vice versa only have 23 chromosomes... 23 chromosomes does not a viable human being make. Once coupled the chromosome count is 46 (or in some conditions slightly different) and only at the point where it has gained 46 chromosomes has it become a human life. I made mention of this earlier.
Since one of the champions of science(and recently atheism) Stephen Hawking compares us to "computers" I will now do so too. He says he sees us as computers. Lets say you go into a store and buy a laptop computer that's modeled after one on the display shelves... its never been turned on and you're carrying it out of the store in the box and I come up and snatch it from you and start bashing it to pieces... as you come up wtf'ing me I hold out my hand palm out and say... stop... its ok.. Its not a computer... you never turned it on or put anything on there (inb4 having to pre program the thing = putting stuff on it.... pre programmed instincts... that is all) ... I didn't just destroy a computer
or if you won't let me have that... I go to the factory and destroy one prior to their putting information on it... and then start w/ my argument after they try and stick me w/ destroying a computer. (inb4 breaking a single starting piece of the equates to breaking a computer... a computer part is not self assimilating... stem cells... that is all)
Either going in there and smashing the never used computers is smashing computers or Mr. Hawking was wrong and basing comparing us to such and basing judgement on what ends up happening to us off of them is somewhat erroneous... which would mean the presence of something such as a God would be no more debunked by what happens to computers than it is debunked by what happens to a blade of grass.
That is all well and fine in a good economy, but with how America is shaping up right now, I think that improper funding of the Clinics to teach abortion is just horrible. If they cannot fund themselves, which is more than likely going to be the case, than more women will be getting back alley abortions, which is just more harmful to the women.
I don't care if you like abortion or not. You have to realize that if they want to kill/get rid of their embryo, than they are going to have it happen one way or another. You are actually killing people by not providing the health clinics with enough funding to adequately empower their employees to have safe medical procedures, and subsequently forcing the women to have unsafe abortions.
You're position is that being pro-choice is right and pro-life is wrong, which is why the government should be allowed to fund abortions with tax payer money.
My position is that it's wrong to force people to pay for things they don't support. If you are pro-life, your taxes shouldn't be used for abortions. If you're pro-choice, your taxes shouldn't be used on pro-life campaigns. I believe the only people who should pay for teaching abortions are those who are in favor of them.
I can understand why my position is a bit iffy though. My solution is for the abortion department in health centers to work off of donations and other forms of funding. Of course, the more health centers are socialized, the harder it will be for them to gain donations in the first place.
I don't see it as a matter of whether abortion is right or wrong, I see it as a matter of freedom.
its not iffy at all. if they truly support it and they want the gov't to help fund it then an account that does such should be opened...a and those who want to participate in it can think of it as a tithing they give to churches... or call it the atheist pro choice tithe... if they want it to be funded then they pay into it. I'm sure that with such a large number of people paying into it it would make the funding problem non-existant.
...plus medicaid paid for my little brother to be born b/c my family didn't have insurance when they were in school... and barely had any money on top of that... (that's why there was no insurance) ... and I mean completely paid for it... C-Sec and all..
so I'm not seeing this "its too expensive" thing... more like for the most part too lazy to sit through all the paper work.
Sorry, no not even the following analogy. When you buy a computer, you know you're gonna use it, hell you bought it for that specific reason. You assume that and it probably won't bring you in financial troubles (not directlyXD), and the purchase has been done on your free choice. That's no problem if you don't want to throw it away. Same with the kids. If you want your child, then go and have it. If you want to keep the child, then do it. I mean I'm prochoice, if you want to keep the child, that's no problem (your analogy seemed to include a outer and forced action against the mother's will :S). I just say abortion should stay a choice for the parents, also for couples with not a lot of money, so abortion should be kept something affordable. If you don't want to pay for that ok, but find a way so that it doesn't get something for rich couples only.
