• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I have a new Avatar

Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
Good, you can desist with the paranoia. We weren't avoiding calling him baby just because the word never popped up in context.

It was not Paronoia the fact is You as well as others did not refer to my baby as a baby I did not know if this was intentenial or not. That is why I brought it up.

As can you with your life experience bullshit, Felicity. See? He said it himself.

Again spoken like a true teenager. Back when I was a teenager. (OH Boy I never thought I be saying That) I said the same thing only to realized later in life those people were only trying to help me. An expression of concern is just someone saying they care about you. I guess it is true " You always hurt the ones you love" Try readiding "I'll hold you in heaven " By Jack Hayford.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Again spoken like a true teenager. Back when I was a teenager. (OH Boy I never thought I be saying That) I said the same thing only to realized later in life those people were only trying to help me. An expression of concern is just someone saying they care about you. I guess it is true " You always hurt the ones you love" Try readiding "I'll hold you in heaven " By Jack Hayford.

Um... what are you on about? What expression of concern, where? :neutral:
 

Some_Guy

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm 14, and I hear a lot of crap at school like what you said, Vergiss.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Some_Guy said:
I'm 14, and I hear a lot of crap at school like what you said, Vergiss.

You hear a lot of pro-choicers at school? Good school.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Um... what are you on about? What expression of concern, where? :neutral:
Actually...I was trying to show concern for both you and JP by explaining to you how your "corpse" comment might be stronger and more callous than you intend, and letting JP know you might be lacking a little insight into how devistating it can be to lose a child. Take it or leave it vergiss...apparently you decided to leave it...that's fine.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
And the point is no--you can't tell the difference if all you look at is DNA--thus they are the same type of being. If you can't kill an adolescent because killing human beings is wrong--you morally can't kill a zygote for the same reason.

Im glad this almighty "DNA" is held to such a high standard that it has rights.

Im going to clip off a toe nail, having the same DNA and still making it a seperate entity, and Im going to give it rights to property, guns, free speech, (right to life).

Then im going to pour gasoline on it and set it on fire and watch as Im destroying this ALMIGHTY DNA!!!!!!!

This DNA argument is the lamest crock of bullshit Ive ever heard in my entire life. Its a sad pathetic way for people who want to impose thier own moral beliefs on others to try to make a scientific argument on the issue. And most people don't buy it.. Im one of those people.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Finally you did call my Baby a Baby as he really is. Yes you are also correct Physically he is a corpse, spiritually I know I will hold him in heaven.

Well, its good that you have your spirituality and heaven and all that, but it doesn't count towards arguing the issue........

Secondly, You said the "born fetus" if you will... wasn't given the hat and stuff until after it was already dead... I understand your loss must be horrible but, I ask you... how sick does one have to be to deliver a baby even when it had no chance of living... then dress it up in a hat and take pictures of it????

I know someone is probably going to mention a funeral or something.... but... Ive never heard of people who take pictures of the corpse sitting in its casket.. thats just plain wrong....and delivering something that wasn't meant to live and then taking pictures of it... what is wrong with this picture?
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Im glad this almighty "DNA" is held to such a high standard that it has rights.

Im going to clip off a toe nail, having the same DNA and still making it a seperate entity, and Im going to give it rights to property, guns, free speech, (right to life).

Then im going to pour gasoline on it and set it on fire and watch as Im destroying this ALMIGHTY DNA!!!!!!!

This DNA argument is the lamest crock of bullshit Ive ever heard in my entire life. Its a sad pathetic way for people who want to impose thier own moral beliefs on others to try to make a scientific argument on the issue. And most people don't buy it.. Im one of those people.
Do you have a rational reason? Or is all about your "feeling" it's a crock?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I love the lengths Pro-Life people will go to show thier support for pro-life stances.....

I also love how they try to turn pro-choice into... pro-abortion....

To make it sound as if people who agree that women should have the right to choose (CHOOSE meaning if they don't agree with abortion, they don't have to do it), I love how they try to make pro-choice out to be, "KILL ALL UNBORN CHILDREN! KILL THEM NOW! DOWN WILL CHILDREN!" That is the most irresponsible thing that the pro-life stance can say.

I don't want any child of mine to be aborted... but should my idea of what is moral be law becauase I want it to be? Is it really murder???? People are exaggerating the circumstances of murder..... and the DNA argument, I guess I should get charged for murder for burning my fingernail clippings.....and letting the DNA of a droplet of my blood die because it fell on the floor and I whiped it up with toilet paper and threw it in the trash.....Ridiculous idea.
The baby is not a baby until it is born........
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Do you have a rational reason? Or is all about your "feeling" it's a crock?

I say again.....
This DNA argument is the lamest crock of bullshit Ive ever heard in my entire life. Its a sad pathetic way for people who want to impose thier own moral beliefs on others by creating a scientific argument on the issue. And most people don't buy it.. Im one of those people.

The rational reason is that the presence of DNA does not give something rights.

Being a developed organism is the only thing that should give someone these "rights"

A "Right" is a human creation anyways, so this DNA and scientific theory on what is living and not has no place. Since a "Right" is a human creation, only human interpretation of life is acceptable, not DNA or scientific baloney.

I think we've had this argument in the past... and Ive come to the conclusion that you, Felicity, have no reason other than the crap that pro-life people feed you, and your own moral beliefs why another woman should have the right to choose whether or not to bear the burden of a growing creature in thier body.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
The rational reason is that the presence of DNA does not give something rights.

Being a developed organism is the only thing that should give someone these "rights"


And what do you base this supposed "logic" on Caine? I mean you make two statements of supposed "fact":

1. that DNA does not give "rights"

and

2. being "developed" gives someone "rights"

What do you base this on? Is there some medical, biological answer that demonstrates that DNA does not indicate "rights" but "development" does? Oh...it's the "legal" definition you subscribe to...

A "Right" is a human creation anyways, so this DNA and scientific theory on what is living and not has no place. Since a "Right" is a human creation, only human interpretation of life is acceptable, not DNA or scientific baloney.
What were the inalienable "rights" that the founding father's were talking about in the Declaration of Independance? I believe they said they were "self-evident"--apparently you don't agree with them, eh?

And I'll remind you, too, that the "UNITED STATES" is not the "WORLD" and there are people that live in other countries too that have the same inalienable "rights" that the founders were talking about....hmmmmm....I think they are called BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS....and hey...lookie there...."human" rights....how do you determine if someone is "human"....maybe...DNA?

I think we've had this argument in the past... and Ive come to the conclusion that you, Felicity, have no reason other than the crap that pro-life people feed you, and your own moral beliefs why another woman should have the right to choose whether or not to bear the burden of a growing creature in thier body.
I suppose you have valid evidence of that as well rather than just your say-so?
 
Last edited:

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
And what do you base this supposed "logic" on Caine? I mean you make two statements of supposed "fact":

1. that DNA does not give "rights"

and

2. being "developed" gives someone "rights"

What do you base this on? Is there some medical, biological answer that demonstrates that DNA does not indicate "rights" but "development" does? Oh...it's the "legal" definition you subscribe to...

What were the inalienable "rights" that the founding father's were talking about in the Declaration of Independance? I believe they said they were "self-evident"--apparently you don't agree with them, eh?

And I'll remind you, too, that the "UNITED STATES" is not the "WORLD" and there are people that live in other countries too that have the same inalienable "rights" that the founders were talking about....hmmmmm....I think they are called BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS....and hey...lookie there...."human" rights....how do you determine if someone is "human"....maybe...DNA?

I suppose you have valid evidence of that as well rather than just your say-so?


Yes, and BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS were created by man.
Yes they can say that such and such is "self-evident"
But what does that really mean? It means that men THINK that these are 'SELF-EVIDENT'

Nobody KNOWS anything.

And to think that DNA ALONE determines classification of a human being... that is pathetic....

If I scientifically create DNA in a lab, does that DNA thus have the right to wield a weapon and the right to continue living in my lab?

What defines a human? Surely its not........
DNA is a long polymer of nucleotides and encodes the sequence of the amino acid residues in proteins using the genetic code, a triplet code of nucleotides.

That doesn't sound like a definition of what is Human to me.
Being Human is more than just being DNA.
Of course, thats my opinion of the matter, if you truly thing being human is characterized on the single grounds of evidence of DNA, you have issues in understanding what a HUMAN is.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Yes, and BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS were created by man.
Yes they can say that such and such is "self-evident"
But what does that really mean? It means that men THINK that these are 'SELF-EVIDENT'

Nobody KNOWS anything.

And to think that DNA ALONE determines classification of a human being... that is pathetic....

If I scientifically create DNA in a lab, does that DNA thus have the right to wield a weapon and the right to continue living in my lab?

What defines a human? Surely its not........
DNA is a long polymer of nucleotides and encodes the sequence of the amino acid residues in proteins using the genetic code, a triplet code of nucleotides.

That doesn't sound like a definition of what is Human to me.
Being Human is more than just being DNA.
Of course, thats my opinion of the matter, if you truly thing being human is characterized on the single grounds of evidence of DNA, you have issues in understanding what a HUMAN is.
I believe if you look at my post you will see I said "how do you determine if someone is "human"....maybe...DNA?" What I DID NOT say was that DNA was all that a human is or that it "defines" human beings.


Nobody KNOWS anything.


Then there is no point in discussing anything--right? If you believe this to be true, why are you here? It must be like screaming in a vacuum. Obviously if no one knows anything--that includes yourself--how pointless it all is with this view. How do you get out of bed in the morning?
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BTW Caine:

You didn't say why you thought "development" held some special significance....but I guess if no one (including you) knows anything--the point it moot.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Then there is no point in discussing anything--right? If you believe this to be true, why are you here? It must be like screaming in a vacuum. Obviously if no one knows anything--that includes yourself--how pointless it all is with this view. How do you get out of bed in the morning?

Yes, trying to explain to you that some OTHER woman, who has no influence or affect on your life, 5 states away from you, having the right to choose whether or not to be a mother if she wants that choice, explaining to you that this is okay, there is no reason for one person's moral view of abortion to take that option away from her, that my friend... is like screaming in a vacuum.. which is what you must have for a head to completely not understand where the pro-choice is coming from.

Unlike your violence type (yes bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus), the pro-choice people who don't necessarily want to abort children themselves, we understand where you pro-life people come from in the sense that abortion is not a positive thing. But, thats as far as it goes, the problems that a ban of abortion would cause this country is not worth the "moral" aspects of it being banned.

A good example of how disguisting some people can get to show thier point...
take a look at the avatar picture of a dead "baby" the size of a three of my fingers in this thread... all dressed up for picture time... say cheese.... oh yeah.. its dead.. it can't move.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Yes, trying to explain to you that some OTHER woman, who has no influence or affect on your life, 5 states away from you, having the right to choose whether or not to be a mother if she wants that choice, explaining to you that this is okay, there is no reason for one person's moral view of abortion to take that option away from her, that my friend... is like screaming in a vacuum.. which is what you must have for a head to completely not understand where the pro-choice is coming from.

Unlike your violence type (yes bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus), the pro-choice people who don't necessarily want to abort children themselves, we understand where you pro-life people come from in the sense that abortion is not a positive thing. But, thats as far as it goes, the problems that a ban of abortion would cause this country is not worth the "moral" aspects of it being banned.

A good example of how disguisting some people can get to show thier point...
take a look at the avatar picture of a dead "baby" the size of a three of my fingers in this thread... all dressed up for picture time... say cheese.... oh yeah.. its dead.. it can't move.


Why are you so angry?


This tantrum isn't necessary...is there some raw nerve here that has to be protected by such hostility?

I'm just asking you to have a "reason" for why you think ending the life of the human in a womb is fine if the woman wants to...I'm just asking you to express why you think that human in the womb is less deserving of breathing than you are. You are the one with the emotional diatribe...not me.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Why are you so angry?


This tantrum isn't necessary...is there some raw nerve here that has to be protected by such hostility?

I'm just asking you to have a "reason" for why you think ending the life of the human in a womb is fine if the woman wants to...I'm just asking you to express why you think that human in the womb is less deserving of breathing than you are. You are the one with the emotional diatribe...not me.

My reason for being in agreement with the choice to terminate a pregnancy if a woman so chooses to do so, is this.... The child will be her responsibility, hers and her husband's (if she has one), or just her's alone. If she is unable to take care of the child, financially... emotionally... not capable of handling the burdens of child responsibility....whatever the case may be, she should not be forced to give life to the child. Yes, there is the talk of "Hey she can put it up for adoption!" Do you really want to let something suck life out of you to stay alive just so you can give it away because you are unable to provide for it? Sometimes woman cannot perform thier job while they are pregnant, depending on what thier job is... some of these woman who are independant and cannot support themselves without a job will be unable to pay thier own bills while they hold a pregnancy that they cannot go through with......Those are just a few views.

My major concern goes to what type of problems the ban of abortions will cause, besides the issue of back alley abortions causing health risks, we also have the problem of an increase in child care services that will have to be funded by the government to provide for the large amount of children who are being given up for adoption because they were forced to be given a life, that maybe they themselves will end up not wanting while living in a child care home. The republicans who hate welfare and helping the holmess will really have a problem with the financial support needed for these programs multiplies 20 times. Crime rates will go up because unwanted children will be raised poorly and join gangs to feel wanted.......healcare costs could go up.... an increased strain on the Social Security system (if it survives Bush's war).
Many problems will be caused.... Im certain I could think of more if I wanted to.

Tell me one problem that could be solved in this country by forcing the ban of abortion, but in those you can't include...
Murder of Babies (negotiable)
Bombing of Abortion Clinics (LoL)

Tell me a problem that would be solved that would be worth the list of problems it causes.
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe if you look at my post you will see I said "how do you determine if someone is "human"....maybe...DNA?" What I DID NOT say was that DNA was all that a human is or that it "defines" human beings.

Searching for the specific combination of DNA into 22 chromosomes (plus the "sex determining" chromosome) is a way of determining whether the genetic material is of human orgin. However, when we get into the subject of what defines that genetic material as a human individual we wander into metaphysics and the arguement on both sides breaks down, because we can't prove anything one way or another. In the context of the discussion saying that we determine if someone is human by DNA effectively means you are defining a human individual in terms of DNA.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
Searching for the specific combination of DNA into 22 chromosomes (plus the "sex determining" chromosome) is a way of determining whether the genetic material is of human orgin. However, when we get into the subject of what defines that genetic material as a human individual we wander into metaphysics and the arguement on both sides breaks down, because we can't prove anything one way or another. In the context of the discussion saying that we determine if someone is human by DNA effectively means you are defining a human individual in terms of DNA.

Exactly why I always laugh at this argument.......
Actually, I throw out all "scientific" arguments on the issue of abortion.

I feel its pathetic to be sympathetic to a ball of cells just because it has DNA.
Now, if you have genuine care for your child, then thats a different story.
Pro-Life... you want to ban abortion? Have a doctor come up with a way to transfer fertilized eggs that happened from someone elses sex into YOUR body so YOU can be responsible for all the children that you dont want to be "MURDERED"
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The avatar, as a picture is fine for a family that wants something tangible to remember their lost son. It wasn't placed for that reason here though-it's his own version of propaganda and I feel, as a parent, it serves no purpose but to sully the memory of that child.
Elsewhere in these threads the owner of the avatar states he just wants to make his view clear. Yea, and I want Paris Hilton for president. Every one of his threads, including this one is a pathetic attempt to change pro-choicers to anti-women sheep.
It is impossible to 'debate' with the likes of him, Felicity and others who toss out the words 'murder', 'pro-abortion' because they simply can not get the fact that a woman, anyone really, has a fundamental right to decide how their own bodies are utilized and how a person that has nothing to do with them should live, privately, without outside interference.
We have the right to worship as we choose(or choose not to at all), the right to live where we want and the right to live HOW we want. We have the right to choose our education, choose whom to vote for and choose our own style of living.
Tell these same people they have no right to worship, no right to live where they do and watch them scream bloody hell about their 'rights'.....
 

hiker

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
Location
at one with nature
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tecoyah said:
I have to remind you that my fingernail clippings also have DNA that is distinctly human....as does sperm and egg before conception. There are appox. 4 running threads in this forum attempting to define what makes us a human bieng, and what this might possibly mean for the abortion debate in general. None of these threads have manages to get past the emotion that clouds the entire issue, mainly due to the type of heartstring manipulation your new Avatar represents.
As with all debate the personal opinion of those involved is important, and effects the outcome in the end. But, emotional response tends to relinquish actual Data to a background conversation, rather than placing logic, and accepted fact into the forefront....which would allow for decisive debate. In my core I feel for your loss, and understand where your beliefs come from to a certain extent because of the background you have shared....but I simply cannot allow one persons life experience to make the science go away.

Thank you for sharing the picture of beauty....and yourself.

The logic of arguments made by pro-abortionists and expressed with such fervor falls apart completely at the irrefutable evidence you see in that picture. I can see how it would be so frustrating for someone to see their arguments so well demolished like a house of cards.

My fiance gave birth to her still-born son, Dakota, 8 years ago from Jan. 2nd. We are going to his grave in a few weeks for his birthday. Its going to be so tough on her, as it always is. But that is her son. Nobody knows exactly at what point he died in the womb. But like you, I know that is a child. He was her child, he still is her child. To some people...it is so hard to believe that someone can talk themselves out of believing a child is a child because of the selfish desire for themselves or others to be able to take the easy way out from having the responsibility of raising a child. Otherwise reasonable people can be so blinded to the truth...its just so depressing.

I am sorry for the loss of your child. You are not alone. I wish I could have been here with my future stepson today, I wish that could have happened so badly. Life is a wonderful thing, an incredible gift, and an awesome responsibility. Thank you for sharing.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The different with Dakota was that he was wanted. Thus, his mother had bonded with him in the womb - which was presumably a fair while longer than most aborted embroys.

Felicity said:
Actually...I was trying to show concern for both you and JP by explaining to you how your "corpse" comment might be stronger and more callous than you intend, and letting JP know you might be lacking a little insight into how devistating it can be to lose a child. Take it or leave it vergiss...apparently you decided to leave it...that's fine.

Oh, I have a fair idea of how awful it is. Seeing the parents of a friend of mine who died before she was even 16 is not something I can easily forget.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hiker said:
The logic of arguments made by pro-abortionists and expressed with such fervor falls apart completely at the irrefutable evidence you see in that picture. I can see how it would be so frustrating for someone to see their arguments so well demolished like a house of cards.

My fiance gave birth to her still-born son, Dakota, 8 years ago from Jan. 2nd. We are going to his grave in a few weeks for his birthday. Its going to be so tough on her, as it always is. But that is her son. Nobody knows exactly at what point he died in the womb. But like you, I know that is a child. He was her child, he still is her child. To some people...it is so hard to believe that someone can talk themselves out of believing a child is a child because of the selfish desire for themselves or others to be able to take the easy way out from having the responsibility of raising a child. Otherwise reasonable people can be so blinded to the truth...its just so depressing.

I am sorry for the loss of your child. You are not alone. I wish I could have been here with my future stepson today, I wish that could have happened so badly. Life is a wonderful thing, an incredible gift, and an awesome responsibility. Thank you for sharing.
That's not an aborted child, point one, so it's irrelevant.
No one's 'argument' falls like a house of card, point two. The rights of women are clearly defined, facts are backed up(without resorting to strictly anti-rights links). What falls is trying to use emotion as fact.
The loss of a PLANNED and WANTED child is not the same thing at all, point three. Comparing it as such sullies and trifles the memory of that child, regardless of one's stance on the issue of rights.
I think you're confused as to who is blinded.
 

hiker

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
Location
at one with nature
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
The different with Dakota was that he was wanted. Thus, his mother had bonded with him in the womb - which was presumably a fair while longer than most aborted embroys.
Thank you for answering me with a fair argument. As much as I disagree, it is sometimes hard to find someone to debate with on this subject that does not see fit to answer with insults. I would like to point out, as a rebuttle, that it is not in any way fair that it is a tragedy for one child to be stillborn and okay for another child to be aborted because the mother didn't bond with it in the womb quite as well. Everyone deserves a chance. You have yours, I have mine. For me to say that somebody else should not be born because his mother...well, before I get carried away, I should just call this a temporary draw. I'm tired of arguing.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,428
Reaction score
7,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hiker said:
Thank you for answering me with a fair argument. As much as I disagree, it is sometimes hard to find someone to debate with on this subject that does not see fit to answer with insults. I would like to point out, as a rebuttle, that it is not in any way fair that it is a tragedy for one child to be stillborn and okay for another child to be aborted because the mother didn't bond with it in the womb quite as well. Everyone deserves a chance. You have yours, I have mine. For me to say that somebody else should not be born because his mother...well, before I get carried away, I should just call this a temporary draw. I'm tired of arguing.

You missed the point... You were most likely wanted. He was most likely wanted.
I was wanted... my mother was originally going to abort me due to the fact that I was her third child and she was only 20....but she changed her mind because she couldn't do that to a child and, I assume, she "bonded with me in the womb".

Saying that its not fair... well.. its not fair for children to be born to parents that do not love them forcibly, while they are treated poorly because they aren't loved. Its not fair for a child to be given up for adoption because they are not loved, and find out about it later, most likely when they are a teen, and feel all rejected... that has serious psychological affects on some kids.
 
Top Bottom