ProChoiceDanielle
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Peralin said:Thanks, galen, I appreciate the great post. I realized this logic when I was 3/4 finished with the post, but I decided to post it anyway. (I would never have started a thread on this, because I know that my argument would not work.) So I concede this point.
But that isn't my real point. The real thing I do not understand is what I explained in post #1. I want to find out why a woman would want to take a risk that the fetus may be a child, and that they may be killing the child. Since there is a chance that the fetus is a child, what would make them decide that it is worth the risk?
For example, a woman got pregnant and chose to abort the fetus. So she aborted it and lived the rest of her life in peace. Then, she dies, and she expects to go to heaven (I realize this would change depending on what religion you are). But then, God tells her that the fetus that she aborted was actually a child, and that it was a sin because she killed, which is against the ten commandments. So then, because of this moral murder, she is banished to live in hell forever.
Okay, not likely, but I'm hoping you get the point. Do the women even consider that the fetus might be a child? Just think of how terrible you would feel if, after an abortion, you found out that you killed a child. So I'm wondering, Is it worth the moral risk?
ProChoiceDanielle said:But the fact still remains that I am not wrong.
ProChoiceDanielle said:A medical dictionary does not consider a fetus a child. Simple as that. You can harp on it as much as you want, but a fetus is a fetus, and only a fetus.
ProChoiceDanielle said:You are trying to take that chance, but I am explaining to you in medical terms, considering abortion is a medical choice, that there is no child involved in an abortion. There is a fetus. There is technically no child until birth. There is a potential child, but no child.
ProChoiceDanielle said:Secondly, Not everyone believes in God, or some type of heaven, therefore bringing up that point is moot for most people.
Peralin said:The fact remains that you are not wrong. The fact remains that you are not right. Is it worth the risk of being wrong?
"A medical dictionary does not consider a fetus a child". Do you know why? Because it is not fact that the fetus is a child, just as a regular dictionary does not claim that evolution is a fact, because it is not known for sure whther it is or not. Dictionaries will not tell you things that are not well-known facts, because the company does not want to be sued for giving misleading information. (I don't know what that is called, or what # it is, but you know what I'm talking about.)
"A fetus is a fetus and only a fetus". Can you prove that for me? XCan you give me any evidence that supports this, no, you can't, don't waste your time. Do you know this for sure? No, you don't. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you keep avoiding the question. Is it worth the moral risk that you are wrong?
Peralin said:Because dictionaries only state facts, as I said in the last post.
I know this, that's why I included the lines in parentheses. Even so, you would feel bad if you found out that it was murder, wouldn't you?
ProChoiceDanielle said:No, I would not feel bad, because I would know that it was the right choice at that time.
Peralin said:I cannot believe it. Okay, I am going to bring you (personally) into this debate ONCE, because I am stunned by this post.
So you are saying that, if you got pregnant tomorrow, and, as you said in the other thread, you did not want to have children yet, and you knew for a fact that the fetus was a human child, you would still have an abortion? I am shocked to hear this.
You are saying that you would rather kill a child than have a child "when you are not in a position to have children"? And you would rather kill this child than go through with the pregnancy and give it up for adoption. I'm sorry to say this, but this is the worst thing that I have ever heard! How exactly would that be the "best choice"?
ProChoiceDanielle said:There is no child involved in an abortion, again, I have stated it, and backed it up several times.
ProChoiceDanielle said:Yes, the fetus is human. What's your point? Like I said before, it is obviously not a pig, or a cat.
ProChoiceDanielle said:Yes, I would rather end my pregnancy, then be pregnant for 9 months, and give my child away to strangers. I do not believe in adoption, and I would never give up a child for adoption, and neither would my husband.
Peralin said:What are you talking about? You haven't backed it up at all! Not on this thread at least. I already showed you why the medical dictionary thing doesn't work, and that's the only "backing up" that you've done. It cannot be proven whether it is a child or not. So I asked you, if you knew for a fact that it was a child, would you still have and abortion and kill it. And you said yes. That is what stuns me. That you would prefer to kill a child than go through with the pregnancy. That is exactly what you have just said yes to, did you mean it or are you going to take it back?
My point is that it may be a human child. As I said, dictionaries would not call the fetus a child because it is not a proven fact.
So, if you knew for a fact that the fetus was a child, and that an abortion would kill the child, you would rather have an abortion than give birth and put it up for adoption? (Please answer this question directly in a different paragraph)
Peralin said:What are you talking about? You haven't backed it up at all! Not on this thread at least. I already showed you why the medical dictionary thing doesn't work, and that's the only "backing up" that you've done. It cannot be proven whether it is a child or not. So I asked you, if you knew for a fact that it was a child, would you still have and abortion and kill it. And you said yes. That is what stuns me. That you would prefer to kill a child than go through with the pregnancy. That is exactly what you have just said yes to, did you mean it or are you going to take it back?
Peralin said:My point is that it may be a human child. As I said, dictionaries would not call the fetus a child because it is not a proven fact.
Peralin said:So, if you knew for a fact that the fetus was a child, and that an abortion would kill the child, you would rather have an abortion than give birth and put it up for adoption? (Please answer this question directly in a different paragraph)
Hume said:You can't give rights to something that may or may not exist, just like congress won't make alien killing illegal anytime soon.
Why do you care? It's the womans body, her that will have to give birth to it, lose income in leaving work, and have it inhabiting her body. What possible right could you have to dictate what the woman should do?
Peralin said:Well, if it was proven that the fetus was a child (which is a big "what if", I know) then it would be equal to a murder! I don't mean legally, I mean morally. It would be the exact same as murder of an infant child. In that case, it makes no difference if it's in the woman's body or not. If it can be proven that it is a child, it is morally wrong to abort it. (Now there's an opinion that I am willing to argue.)
Unless it became illlegal (and for this argument we re saying that it would not be) I would have no way to keep anyone from having abortions. But that's not the point. The point is that, if the fetus could be proven as a child, it would be ignorant and selfish (along with many other nasty adjectives) to kill it.
Now, Hume, the reason I care is because danielle said that she would rather kill the child then put it up for adoption. That is very very sad. I cannot believe that she could possibly be so cruel that she would actually do this. Would you?
ProChoiceDanielle said:I have already told you. I am against adoption. Therefore I would not put a child up for adoption, EVER. If I decided to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy and the birthing process, I will become a parent. But again, like I have said before, I would abort over adoption.
ProChoiceDanielle said:Many people would rather have an abortion that give a child up for adoption. How about you focus on the 130,000 children waiting to be adopted right now than stopping abortion.
Peralin said:Okay, fine! Then answer this question: If you knew for a fact that the fetus was a child, and that abortion would kill that child, would you go through with the abortion or give birth keep the child?
ProChoiceDanielle said:I have ALREADY ANSWERED THIS! If I do not want to be a parent, I would have an abortion. If I wanted to become a mother, I would give birth and do exactly that. How many times do I have to answer the same damn thing?
Peralin said:I am asking for repitition because I cannot believe that anyone could possibly be so evil. To purposely kill a child is morally murder, yet you would do it anyways. That is sick.
Peralin said:I am asking for repitition because I cannot believe that anyone could possibly be so evil. To purposely kill a child is morally murder, yet you would do it anyways. That is sick.
ProChoiceDanielle said:So it is my fault that an unwanted fetus at 8 or 10 weeks cannot survive outside of my womb? If it is not wanted, I do not have to keep it. And like I have stated several times on this board already. I do not wish to have any children, and neither does my husband. We want to wait atleast another couple years because we are not in a position to have any children. Simply because of that fact we are not going to stop having sex all together. You can choose to not have sex if you do not want any children, but that is your choice, and this is mine.
vergiss said:You know, I'd really hate to see what your idea of not being impartial is.
You believe abortion kills children, and refuse to argue this. Fine. We believe that it doesn't, and if you're not going to defend your point, we needn't do so, either.
People's morals and values differ. Stop being so bloody black and white and get over the fact that just because you believe something, that doesn't make it absoloute truth. I believe abortion in the first trimester is acceptable and I believe euthanasia for the terminally ill is morally fine, perhaps even to the point of giving very severely handicapped babies (I'm talking blind, brain damaged and paralysed, or something) lethal doses of morphine after birth. Of course, I am fully aware that some people would yell themselves hoarse at me over this, with God knows what slander thrown in.
But let's remember that many things I'm sure you find to be moral, others would consider unacceptable. I assume that you eat meat - but many vegetarians consider eating dead animals to be morally wrong (and I bet you'd rather dislike it if they started shouting "Evil murderer!" at you). Learn to respect other people's opinions regarding what is ethical, without shoving your own down their throats or stooping to ridiculous insults.
IndiConservative said:I don't care if abortion kills adults,children, old people or fetus's. I care that it kills humans. People morals have been smeared by this pro-abortion movement to justify it. You just bought it. Its morally wrong to kill people. Big or small its wrong. If abortion stays and society keeps lowering the bar for lazy people to justify there stupid actions who can tell whats next to come. I mean you believe that you can judge someones life is worth living just because they are
"I'm talking blind, brain damaged and paralysed, or something".
Just giving way for another genocidal maniac.
vergiss said:Sigh. Did you even bother to read what I wrote?! I tell you not to be black-and-white regarding what's morally acceptable, and BOOM! You bloody do it again, in response to what I'd said, as if your argument somehow defeats mine. :doh
There's no reasoning with simpletons.
IndiConservative said:Morality can be black and white with little gray. Killing is morally wrong.
Insults don't help your case either.
vergiss said:And you still refuse to see my point! You believe it's wrong, I believe it's quite justified in certain areas (not that abortion is killing, anyway). Just because it's what you, specifically, believe doesn't make it absoloutely right. Sheesh, if belief makes something automatically correct, then we're both going to have to be right, aren't we? And that doesn't exactly work.
I mean, what about those animals I assume you eat? They're hardly alive anymore. I doubt you see anything morally wrong with slaughtering them - but PETA would have a hissy fit. They'd see it as ethically unacceptable. So what makes your moral code better than anyone else's? Besides what you think, of course.
If you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others. Reap what you sow, honey.
IndiConservative said:I understand the concept. So killing humans is ok? If someone is trying to kill you its alright then? I know what helps or hurts society so I know killing is wrong. Abortions gives an open door to disease and casual sex. On top of that it kills humans. How is that morally ok? Does it promote growth in a society?
How about the overall public health? People have shown they can't make all there own decisions. If the world was moralless and lawless do you think it would be a good place to live?
I'm for humane treatment of animals. They live in terrible conditions on farms.
I'd like that changed as well.
Humans = Predator , Animals = Prey
Natural way of life. Self inflicted/Assited abortion is not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?