Not sure what your point is. Something can’t die if it wasn’t alive to start with.
Ermmm, “fertilized egg” is the same thing as “conception”. So if life begins at conception, they’re alive.
The only situation in which an abortion is morally right is one that spares a hopelessly ill and/or malformed child a life filled with unavoidable pain. There are other situations when it is the lesser of two evils and understandable, but that does not make them morally right.
It’s not just fine with me to take a woman’s choice. Not even a little bit. Wouldnt do it even if i could. Did you read the whole post?
I don’t suffer from the syndrome. My views aren’t a deficiency in my personality, nor some sickness that just needs a cure.
No. You said you have no empathy. My response was not argument, it was agreement.
Not at all. What I’m trying to get to, is:
Do you feel it is a general principle that people should just suffer the consequences of their earlier actions, across the spectrum of possible cases?
Or do you feel that there are some situations where we offer them help out of the hole they dug themselves, but others where we could help, but you feel we should not?
- And if the latter, what is the actual rationale for the differences.
Drugs were probably a bad example. I should have used something that would be universally admitted as something to avoid.
But you have pointed out the basic disconnect. There is no benefit to outlawing abortion, if a fetus is not a separate human life. If it is, then outlawing abortion has the benefit of reducing the murder of children. And there is no way to prove either belief.
Regards,
Shodan
I dont know about suffering. Perhaps accepting the consequences would be a more suitable term. Ive no problem helping those in need under most conditions, except maybe those that continually or repeatedly(and intentionally or through neglect) place themselves in an adverse position while still expecting others to come to their aid. Of course specifics would need to be addressed on a case by case bassis.
On the could but shouldn’t front; the only example I can think of at the moment that applies to the subject matter would be late term abortion. I think making a decision within a reasonable time, say the first trimester, is imperative.
I did. Under a very specific condtion, but even that isn’t completely accurate. The case of pregnant teens blinded by emotion or as a result emotional manipulation, now locked into making a heart breaking choice comes to mind. -
As some one said upthread. Abortion as a choice, with time limits, combined with the proper education and resources to make an informed decision would be best in my mind. Barring scientific advancements that may change the game.
The thing around here is that the education and resources only barely exist or are applied in a way that they aren’t near as affective as they may otherwise be. That’s bullshit, but getting funding for anything other than abstinence education can be difficult depending on where you live. How anyone could withhold the information to make a proper decision and then hold that person completely accountable for the result is beyond me.
Missed the edit window to clarify.
The education and resources I mentioned should cover abortion as well as pregnancy prevention methods that incude abstinence as well as social pressure and contraception among other things.
No, the whole gay thing is not a joke. I’ve seen anti-abortion protesters hand out pamphlets that make the claim that homosexuality has increased since abortion was made legal.
How do they get those “60%” stats. Ask a woman if she’s had an abortion and if she ever has been depressed. Then, obviously, the abortion caused the depression?
In most cases where people argue for “facing the consequences of your action”, there’s an assumption (explicitly stated or otherwise) that the action itself is risky, irresponsible, and inappropriate.
Other actions that might incur unwanted consequences if we didn’t implement strategies to offset those consequences aren’t generally viewed the same way. We don’t say “don’t let your children swim and then cry if they drown”, we hire lifeguards.
Sex is good. Sexual relationships are good. Sexuality is good. There are several risks involved, including emotional ones as well as reproductive ones. We should install the various equivalents of lifeguards —classes and counseling services for discussing feelings and expectations and how to manage relationships, reproductive counseling and technologies to manage fecundity, and so forth.
[QUOTE=K2500]
The slut had her choice to make, she punishes herself. In the case of rape the girl didn’t, it’s a small concession to make to assure she at least gets to decide weather to keep it.
[/quote]
That the world “slut” appears in this thread somewhere other than as part of a prochoice poster’s cynical attribution/projection of prolife attitude is seriously fucking creepy and revealing.
Sex is good. If your daughter experiments with sexual activity, this is normal and good. If the young woman living on university campus is sexually active, this is healthy and appropriate and good. What the fuck is with people who not only don’t think it good but are so hostile about it that they’d engineer social punishments to take out their wrath on sexually active women?
So I can say slut if I’m on your team and your cool with it, but I cant say slut in response to another’s argument or I’m a creep?
Maybe I should have said “In the case of person A’ whom you cynically and inappropriately referred to as a slut, my opinion is that…”
Would that have pleased you?
There’s more than two camps on this issue and I question whether you took the time to inform yourself on my particular position before calling me out without context.
If you’re riding your bike and you fall and break your arm, well you knew the risks of bike riding. Tough shit, no cast for you. Consequences!
Already been covered. That’s like saying I accidentally had sex.
You were “accidently” riding the bike?
Deleted.
I suppose it’s a little more like accidental conception, I see your point, but then I’d argue that a cast is fixing something broken where abortion is breaking something to fix it.
When the “something” is “an unwanted presence inside my body”, then fixing the problem might indeed require something to be broken. IMO, it doesn’t matter how the unwanted presence got there – if it’s unwanted, people should have the right to evict it.
If it’s been there long enough I think it should get to live out the lease.
And you thought getting your MIL to leave after thanksgiving dinner was tough.