Abortion is Wrong

The input from a man in creating a child and input from a woman isn't anything like 50/50.
Maybe something like 95/5 in the womans favour?
So the man gets a 5% say in what happens to the child.
He gets to say what he would like to happen and the woman gets to decide if she agrees with him or not. That seems fair enough to me.



Good analogy. Black people now get to decide what happens to them rather than being property and sold andn exchanged.
Interestingly women used to be in the same boat (property of their father before being handed over to be property of their husband). Sadly some women still are in that boat.
These days they get to decide for themselves.
They've gone from having no choice in having children to ultimate choice. That's progress whether you like it or not.
 
Or possibly become a drain on the tax system while contributing to the general problem of overpopulation. Not that I care much about that side of the debate.


Or you abort it because its your body? Plus I don't know much about the foster/adoption system, but what I've heard about it isn't glowing praise. If it can't handle the charges it has now I don't agree with giving them more. Unless you're happy to have a tax hike to fund a better service?



1. If you don't care how anyone "tries to twist it" then what's the point of you being on here? I know you're going to say you're allowed to voice an opinion, and you certainly are, but its a bit pointless if you're coming into it with that sort of attitude.

2. I actually have no qualms about it being killing a life. I don't hold life sacred. So why should I keep it in my pants?



That is a ridiculous point. If for no other reason than obviously I'm going to care more about you killing my girlfriend than I will about you killing someone else's kid. This is why I hate it when people can't discuss something without appeals to emotion like that. It results in pointlessly exaggerated scoff. But, again, since I don't equate the two lives its a moot point for me.


I'm much less comfortable telling a fully autonomous human what to do with their bodies than I am letting them do what's in their own interests. Did find it funny that you made a point of thanking someone for serving in the military while in the middle of trying to say how important life is and how no one has the right to take one. Not quite sure how those two views can exist together.
 
Okay, then let's deal with it in terms of bio-ethics instead of religion.
As you can see here, we have a living organism from day one. Is it ethical to kill an organism (a human organism in particular) simply because it is inconvenient/unwanted/etc? Something interesting to ponder. A quite polarizing issue in bioethics. Me, I'm pro-life, but I don't feel like getting into this debate again at the moment.

Good day to you, sir!
 
Based on that diagram, up until 26 days on that chart I would say yes...gets a bit murkier after that

In my post I said "up to a point" and you have now illustrated it admirably - thanks for that.
 
Holy long thread batman, Ero's thread he made for me is still here, even in my long absence.

Woot.
 
I'm hardly throwing a tantrum. You just can't seem to keep my faith out of the discussion, even though I am not the one who brought it up. People who don't like my faith or don't believe in what I do are quite quick to pull that card though. Like I said though, I actually find it amusing though.

No, you didn't directly say let's fight, your whole complex ... or whatever you would call it says plenty though.

We get your point, you don't believe in a god because you think you're to smart for it and it's ok to kill kids. Got it
 
I don't believe in God like I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

At least with the tooth fairy, there was some (planted) evidence to discover the next day.

And as I said earlier. A single celled zygote is not a kid. Every time you suggest otherwise you strengthen my belief (I do have some) that all rigidly pro-life people are irrational, overly emotional, ignorant rubes.
 
Dude, seriously. I have two kids myself and am conflicted in this debate but, "ok to kill kids" is way out of line.

Chill all

Mitch
 
Isn't there a term that defines an incorrect way of arguing over something by making personal, inflaofftopictory statements about your opposition? Oh wait, I think it's called:

- Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man". This is a debating tactic that attacks the arguer and not the argument. PLEASE, debate the words that people post, not your idea ABOUT the person that posts. e.g., "member x is a liberal so his objections to the Iraqi war will obviously be unfounded," or ,"member x is a conservative, so he is obviously a warmonger". More directly, "Mr. Smith is an imbecile, therefore all of his arguments are false."

Thinking you're too smart for god you baby killer you.

Also a lot of this one too:

- Straw man tactics. Making a caricature out of a position in order to make it easier to attack. This is when people Assume they know someone's point of view, and begin arguing a made-up construction about their opponent, rather than just debate the words of their opponent. In short, you assume that your opponent believes something that he or she did not explicitly state.

Definitions courtesy of: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?324134-A-List-of-Bad-Debating-Tactics-and-a-Recipe-for-Reasoned-Thought-ALL-READ-PLEASE!
 
And every time I see it on the top of the homepage I cringe
 
just maybe they see the fetus as being akin to an invasive parasite especially when the pregnancy is unwanted. I know I would. And it doesnt make their opinions invalid. Actually many of the z/e/f's actions are something like a parasite....you know likeusing your body kinda thing.



And that, my MAPPER friend, is exactly why pro lifers love to use the later stages of a fetus for their pics and never an early pregnancy, even though late terms are rare and done for medicinal reasons.



xcuse me? Im almost 35 years old, and childfree and i may never get married, I am not going to not have sex for the rest of my life so you can sleep better at night.



Hey. Thats like saying a childfree person cant participate in parenting talks or saying that they cant possibly have anything worth listening to. That aint cool.



I'm going to disagree with you, and I'll show ya why in a sec.



Exactly how am I selfish. I dont even like babies. So i choose not to have any. And if it has to be through abortion then so be it. Its far more responsble to not like something, know it, and not do it I bet you wouldnt call the woman who didnt like kids but had them anyway, selfish. i bet your attitude would be "she gave them LIFE!"

I really dont believe pro lifers care about quality of life.



Well i want the receipt so I can return this "gift"



Um, no. Mitlov is a lawyer. He can explain why abortion is NOT absolutely NOT, murder. well I can too but he has credentials.



and here is why feminists say its not about saving babies its got a real sexist mysognistic part in the pro life movement. "she chose to have sex so make her pay for her sin!"



No. Im mature enough for sex (indeed I am no virgin) but never do I ever want a kid. Sex isnt a crime. Abortion is being responsible. and besides I am no obligation to make a child for some infertile couple. They can go adopt one of the millions in the world today.



there it is again. Its her body going through all the changes, not his. She gets the say.



Oh my, why? This is a nice thread. Its being very civil.
 
Yes, the later in development you go, odds of survival increase substantially. That was pretty obvious from the data I cited. "70% miscarriage at fertilization, 30% at implantation."

The point being, the religious folk like to claim "life begins at fertilization" when there is only a 30% chance for survival. Then they enjoy claiming that most pregnancies are successful, skipping ahead to the post implantation phases of pregnancy. Religious people seem to enjoy picking and choosing what established scientific data to support at any given moment in discussion; that is when they aren't outright dismissing overwhelming bodies of data because their fallacies run headlong into them.





When Christian organization aren't outright banning the use of, access to, and education of contraceptives, there is the minor issue that condoms alone only work about 82% of the time.





It takes a few years to adopt a child successfully in the US, and when one does, if the biological parents are also in the US, there is a risk that after years of investment into the adopted child, the biological parents will change their mind and legally win back custody. It's rare, but it happens. I know this, because I researched it when considering adoption as the socially responsible course of action.

Interesting that you would suggest it. Most people who claim it's simple and effective, I find, usually opt to have their own biological children, and have zero personal experience on the subject. When do you plan to adopt?



Ah, the mark of maturity in a controversial discussion.

Fetal remains are not, "put in back alley dumpsters," in the US. Do you actually believe that? Are you sincerely that uninformed about the subject, or are you just trying to intentionally make inflaofftopictory statements to evoke emotion? Fetal remains are required by law to either be incinerated or buried in the US.
 
I'm just curious how you reconcile this with your religious beliefs?




With your screen name you are bringing your religion into everything you post. Which is presumably why you chose it. Nothing at all wrong with that but when you so loudly proclaim it, you can't really complain when others bring it up too.
 
No, I don't, a screen name is a screen name, if I have not brought my faith into it then I would appreciate you keeping it out of it.
 
and how about this one? Was I calling names because of what others believe? Us rigidly pro-life "people" are the ones who are emotional? Look above LOL!!!
 
Although "calm down" was directed at everyone, this is a direct question so here is your answer

You posted a hyperbolic suofftopicry of what you say is my position - thing is that is was not even close to being accurate about anything. So I called you on it

You were wrong and reacted like a brat having a hissy fit - no addressing of the point just a flat out tantrum. Disappointing but predictable

Clear enough for you?

Now with regards to "keep my religion out of it" then we have a larger issue - you post explicitly that your religion defines you and who you are elsewhere on MAP; thus you cannot exist in a logic vacuum. When the religion and its core text illustrate that mass genocide and killing of children is acceptable then you have a logical and spiritual impasse you need to reconcile and address or your position is murky at best and hypocritical at worst

So far you have offers emotion, blanket statements and little else - for "just an opinion" that would suffice, but this is a DISCUSSION board so either articulate or retire from the debate - currently you are neither advancing discussion nor explaining your position with any cogency
 
Back
Top