Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
I think that abortion should only be approved if the woman/doctor can come up with sufficent proof that the baby will hurt the mother. For those of you that think abortion is a personal choice think about this. I consider a fetus a human being when, if they came out of the womb and lived, that they act like a normal human baby, mentally. It's kinda hard to say what I'm thinking, but you get the idea I hope. If a doctor performs an abortion, they should be charged with murder of a fetus/human being. It should also be illegal to smoke or do drugs or any other type of thing that can be harmful for your body. I wish that now was like back in 1800s where if you made a mistake, you'd have to pay for it. Now you don't. You can just go to the doctor and say, "I had sex and now I'm pregnent. I don't want a baby, so could I have an abortion?" If you made a mistake and became pregnent, you should pay for it, not your child. Because that is what you are doing, you are killing your own child. Would you kill your 7 month old baby? NO!! Then why would you kill your son or daughter befor they were born? If you say that you are fine with abortion, then you are not only saying that you are okay with murder, you are saying that it is okay to kill your children. Think about that, befor you say abortion is okay.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 18:39 I think that abortion should only be approved if the woman/doctor can come up with sufficent proof that the baby will hurt the mother. For those of you that think abortion is a personal choice think about this. I consider a fetus a human being when, if they came out of the womb and lived, that they act like a normal human baby, mentally. It's kinda hard to say what I'm thinking, but you get the idea I hope. If a doctor performs an abortion, they should be charged with murder of a fetus/human being. It should also be illegal to smoke or do drugs or any other type of thing that can be harmful for your body. I wish that now was like back in 1800s where if you made a mistake, you'd have to pay for it. Now you don't. You can just go to the doctor and say, "I had sex and now I'm pregnent. I don't want a baby, so could I have an abortion?" If you made a mistake and became pregnent, you should pay for it, not your child. Because that is what you are doing, you are killing your own child. Would you kill your 7 month old baby? NO!! Then why would you kill your son or daughter befor they were born? If you say that you are fine with abortion, then you are not only saying that you are okay with murder, you are saying that it is okay to kill your children. Think about that, befor you say abortion is okay. Life begins at three months. It's been proven with psychological experiments that this is the point in which the fetus shows capacity for learning. I'll dig up the exact experiment later, but it involved Neo-pavlovian condition to react to loud noises or something like that. I dunno. I'll dig it up though A full blown fetus is one thing, but you're going to have trouble convincing me that a small clump of cells can think.
What if the woman got raped and got pregnant as a result?
i think it's okay to abort if the baby is going to be born super fucking retarded with like no arms or legs n 1 eye and will only live for a month anyways, or if they come out like sadukar.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 20:39 I think that abortion should only be approved if the woman/doctor can come up with sufficent proof that the baby will hurt the mother. For those of you that think abortion is a personal choice think about this. I consider a fetus a human being when, if they came out of the womb and lived, that they act like a normal human baby, mentally. It's kinda hard to say what I'm thinking, but you get the idea I hope. If a doctor performs an abortion, they should be charged with murder of a fetus/human being. It should also be illegal to smoke or do drugs or any other type of thing that can be harmful for your body. I wish that now was like back in 1800s where if you made a mistake, you'd have to pay for it. Now you don't. You can just go to the doctor and say, "I had sex and now I'm pregnent. I don't want a baby, so could I have an abortion?" If you made a mistake and became pregnent, you should pay for it, not your child. Because that is what you are doing, you are killing your own child. Would you kill your 7 month old baby? NO!! Then why would you kill your son or daughter befor they were born? If you say that you are fine with abortion, then you are not only saying that you are okay with murder, you are saying that it is okay to kill your children. Think about that, befor you say abortion is okay. However, if the parents did not want the baby and knows they will not take care of it, not aborting it would cause the child to have a childhood of misery most likely.
Rocko wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 21:21 i think it's okay to abort if the baby is going to be born super fucking retarded with like no arms or legs n 1 eye and will only live for a month anyways, or if they come out like sadukar. Juliana Wetmore, anyone?
I would think that abortion is acceptable. If you don't want the baby, why let it grow up and let it find out that it wasn't wanted? Or, as happens, be tortured, malnourished, and killed because it's not wanted?
I'm a Republican. Though, a more left-wing Republican. I believe in Pro-Choice. Not because I think that women should just be able to have babies and then murder them. No, thats not my line of reasoning. First, let me give you an example of something that happens a lot: A young black girl in the inner city gets pregnant with a black man's baby. Both are poor, ignorant, and stupid (Not trying to be racist or anything, I'm just giving an example that is very true in many poor areas). Now, if this girl wasn't allowed to get an abortion, whats going to happen? Shes going to make another poor, depraved, ignorant, and quite possibly stupid child to cause trouble. This happens all of the time. This happens everywhere. And guess what? With the amount of drugs taken and alcohol by these people, the child will quite possibly be retarded. Okay, now obviously, this isn't what its like for everyone. There are plenty of average or upper-class people who have this done out of pure insensity or stupidity. If abortion was made illegal, we'd have a SURGE of people in these inner-city areas, and elsewhere.
Maud, u want "anything harmful" illegal, what about eating meat, should we all become vegaterians because of your beliefs? And what about playing Renegade, it can lead to carpal tunnel and arthritis and should we all sit home as vegetables and stare at the TV 24/7? Wait TVs can produce harmful radiation and eye strain which could be deadly. If we really think about it , the only proven thing living leads to is death which could be "harmful" so should we give up living?
Life begins at conception. Experiments showing the capacity for learning at three months do not ensure life begins there. There are several organisms without the capacity to learn at all, yet are they any less alive? Everyone speaks out about how the mother should have the choice to whether she wants the baby or not, but where is the voice of the child? If given the chance, would they choose to live or die? Rape is unfortunate, but the child did not choose to be to product of rape any more than the woman choose to be the victim of it. It's an enormous burden that's placed on the woman, but(and my fiancee thinks the same) she should birth the child and give it to an adoption agency. Subsequently, there should be MUCH harsher punishment upon rapists to deter this activity up to, and including capital punishment. That's a completely different topic though. Abortion is murder, and women should be educated about the alternatives prior to abortion so that they don't make a choice that they would regret later in life. There is one instance for when abortion should be legal, and only one from my current viewpoint. That is the case for when the mother could be harmed in the case of birthing, or carrying the child.
Rocko wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 23:21 i think it's okay to abort if the baby is going to be born super fucking retarded with like no arms or legs n 1 eye and will only live for a month anyways, or if they come out like sadukar. Jealous I got a higher IQ than you?
Jecht wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 10:15 Life begins at conception. Experiments showing the capacity for learning at three months do not ensure life begins there. There are several organisms without the capacity to learn at all, yet are they any less alive? Everyone speaks out about how the mother should have the choice to whether she wants the baby or not, but where is the voice of the child? If given the chance, would they choose to live or die? Rape is unfortunate, but the child did not choose to be to product of rape any more than the woman choose to be the victim of it. It's an enormous burden that's placed on the woman, but(and my fiancee thinks the same) she should birth the child and give it to an adoption agency. Subsequently, there should be MUCH harsher punishment upon rapists to deter this activity up to, and including capital punishment. That's a completely different topic though. Abortion is murder, and women should be educated about the alternatives prior to abortion so that they don't make a choice that they would regret later in life. There is one instance for when abortion should be legal, and only one from my current viewpoint. That is the case for when the mother could be harmed in the case of birthing, or carrying the child. Some people don't want their genes combined with someone else. My philosophy is, the kid can't think, they can't speak, they can't ''really'' feel. If the mother wants to get rid of them, let her, because of she doesn't? That kid may WISH they were never born living with someone like that.
Jecht wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 02:15 Life begins at conception. Experiments showing the capacity for learning at three months do not ensure life begins there. There are several organisms without the capacity to learn at all, yet are they any less alive? More learned people than I wrote: Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena: Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth The "response to stimuli" is the important part here. Fetuses begin responding at 3 months. Therefore, it's safe to assume before then, they are not alive. Even brain-dead and comatose people respond to certain stimuli. How can you call killing something LESS THAN BRAIN DEAD murder?! Edit: Really, the issue here isn't "Is it morally right or is it not?". The issue is "is it the government's place to make such a decision for women. I can't think of a single valid arguement to make Abortion illegal. Wether or not it's morally okay is neither here nor there.
I still feel that it's a life. It has human DNA and it has the potential and barring any medical conditions or twisted fate, the underdeveloped fetus will be a full grown, sentient human. That's enough for me to consider it to be worth saving.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 09:56 I still feel that it's a life. It has human DNA and it has the potential and barring any medical conditions or twisted fate, the underdeveloped fetus will be a full grown, sentient human. That's enough for me to consider it to be worth saving. Eggs have the potential to become chickens, yet they are not chickens. Edit: You did word this very well though. "I still feel" -- That's fine if you're ever in a situation where you might need an abortion, but that's far from reason to impose your values on over 150,000,000 women in the United States.
I'm not talking about a sperm or an egg. I'm talking about a fetus. I'm speaking of post-conception. Plus, the egg is obviously not the chicken, nor does the egg turn into a chicken. The embryo inside of the egg is a chicken.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 10:01 I'm not talking about a sperm or an egg. I'm talking about a fetus. I'm speaking of post-conception. Plus, the egg is obviously not the chicken, nor does the egg turn into a chicken. The embryo inside of the egg is a chicken. You missed the point. Pre- or post-conception, the potential is still there. It has chicken DNA, and if nature takes it's course, it'll become a full-grown sentient chicken. Plus, the embryo is the egg yolk, unless I'm terribley ignorant about eggs (I don't even really like eating them much), in which case I'm sorry.
A baseball sitting on a pitcher's mound does not have the same potential to be hit out of the park as a ball mid-air, being thrown towards the batter. Events have already set the ball in motion which is cause for the potential. Sure, the egg, fertilized or not, can potentially be a human, chicken, dog, etc... but without it being fertilized, it's a moot point. Now, if you were trying to argue that it's wrong for women to take a birth control pill based on that argument, then I can see the relevance. However, an embryo is already past the stage of just existing and CAN be fertilized. The embryo is already in the midst of the process of developing into an adult human.
The body belongs to the women, it is her choice and her choice alone if she wants the baby or not, it is not yours or anyone else's to decide that.
Consider this; a human egg is released and destroyed every month if it isn't fertilized. Each and every one of them has the potential of turning into a contributer to our society.
sadukar09 wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 08:34 Rocko wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 23:21 i think it's okay to abort if the baby is going to be born super fucking retarded with like no arms or legs n 1 eye and will only live for a month anyways, or if they come out like sadukar. Jealous I got a higher IQ than you? Rocko has an IQ? Anyway I am pro-life...from the simple fact that every innocent person deserves to live. This talk about the baby having a screwed up life is kinda stupid...let it grow up, if the kid doesn't want to be alive thats his/her choice not the mother's. I believe that human life begins as soon as the sperm hits the egg...steps taken afterward to hinder its growth and/or kill is abortion which since it is the act of purposely killing a human..is murder.
RoShamBo wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:37 Consider this; a human egg is released and destroyed every month if it isn't fertilized. Each and every one of them has the potential of turning into a contributer to our society. Yet if you would have read my post, you would see that the potential is completely different. I don't care if it's inside of the woman or not. She should not be able to write off the life of her child.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:02 I don't care if it's inside of the woman or not. She should not be able to write off the life of her child. So easy for you to say; you are not the woman. Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 20:39 It should also be illegal to smoke or do drugs or any other type of thing that can be harmful for your body. That's the best idea I have ever heard. Let's force our morals and beliefs on others. Jecht wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 04:15 Everyone speaks out about how the mother should have the choice to whether she wants the baby or not, but where is the voice of the child? Jecht wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 04:15 There is one instance for when abortion should be legal, and only one from my current viewpoint. That is the case for when the mother could be harmed in the case of birthing, or carrying the child. Then what about the "voice of the child"? IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:28 The body belongs to the women, it is her choice and her choice alone if she wants the baby or not, it is not yours or anyone else's to decide that. People's morals and selfish beliefs are what is stopping them from accepting this. ^
It has nothing to do with personal morals if you view it as a child. Most, if not all of us, will agree that killing a person is a bad thing. I couldn't give a fuck less about what someone does to their body, but I'm not going to agree with abortion if I feel that it's murder.
Of course everyone is going to say it is bad. But not everyone will ACTUALLY agree. I'll bet more than half the people in this thread that say abortion, or killing an unborn baby, is wrong. However those people probably are only saying that for the image, they most likely don't believe in what they said themselves or if they do, to a much lesser extent of what they did explain. What I'm saying is that people will try to reply the obvious moral answer, but their true opinions will not surface.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:57 Of course everyone is going to say it is bad. But not everyone will ACTUALLY agree. I'll bet more than half the people in this thread that say abortion, or killing an unborn baby, is wrong. However those people probably are only saying that for the image, they most likely don't believe in what they said themselves or if they do, to a much lesser extent of what they did explain. What I'm saying is that people will try to reply the obvious moral answer, but their true opinions will not surface. The obvious moral answer? Here's the obvious moral answer. Women don't stick anything up the government's womb. It should keep their laws out of theirs.
What if I was to ask you if you think gathering every single person in the world with incurable diseases, like AIDS, and grouping them onto remote locations and detonating them with a large bomb?
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:50 What if I was to ask you if you think gathering every single person in the world with incurable diseases, like AIDS, and grouping them onto remote locations and detonating them with a large bomb? It won't make AID's disappear.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:50 What if I was to ask you if you think gathering every single person in the world with incurable diseases, like AIDS, and grouping them onto remote locations and detonating them with a large bomb? I can't see the relevence, but it would have to be handled at a case-to-case basis. Magic Johnson has AIDS, and I doubt he'll die before he's 90.
Starbuzz wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:51 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:50 What if I was to ask you if you think gathering every single person in the world with incurable diseases, like AIDS, and grouping them onto remote locations and detonating them with a large bomb? It won't make AID's disappear. Ah, but it would drastically slow the spread, now wouldn't it? And yes, it is very relevant to what I said earlier. Most people will say "No, killing is wrong and we shouldn't stoop that low to get rid of one problem." Where as in reality they may or may not converse it to themselves or totally agree with the idea. It is all about public appearances, that is just how humans work.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 16:55 Starbuzz wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:51 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:50 What if I was to ask you if you think gathering every single person in the world with incurable diseases, like AIDS, and grouping them onto remote locations and detonating them with a large bomb? It won't make AID's disappear. Ah, but it would drastically slow the spread, now wouldn't it? And yes, it is very relevant to what I said earlier. Most people will say "No, killing is wrong and we shouldn't stoop that low to get rid of one problem." Where as in reality they may or may not converse it to themselves or totally agree with the idea. It is all about public appearances, that is just how humans work. And when did I ever endorse OR condemn your idea?
I... I never said you did. And just to get things straight... it is not "my idea." It was just an example I came up with the prove my point. I never said I agreed or disagreed with it myself either.
I meant smoke or do drugs in order to kill the child. It has happened.
Women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their body. You could outlaw "abortion" but then they would just get a friend to punch them in the stomach or fall down some stairs etc so it would get done as an "accident". There is no way to police it so why bother doing anything other than discussing the morality of it. I guess what I'm saying it, it doesn't matter if YOU are pro life or pro choice...its the pregnant womans choice and nobody elses.
Quote: Jecht wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 04:15 There is one instance for when abortion should be legal, and only one from my current viewpoint. That is the case for when the mother could be harmed in the case of birthing, or carrying the child. Then what about the "voice of the child"? The woman has the right to her life as well, I know from some people of the pro-life community that believe that abortion in any circumstance is immoral. But I view this circumstance like a person coming at you with a knife...you have a right to defend yourself, thus a mother has a right to terminate a pregnancy if carrying or delivering a child will cause serious harm or death.
Blazer wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 15:57 Women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their body. You could outlaw "abortion" but then they would just get a friend to punch them in the stomach or fall down some stairs etc so it would get done as an "accident". There is no way to police it so why bother doing anything other than discussing the morality of it. I guess what I'm saying it, it doesn't matter if YOU are pro life or pro choice...its the pregnant womans choice and nobody elses. QFT.
Dover wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 19:01 Blazer wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 15:57 Women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their body. You could outlaw "abortion" but then they would just get a friend to punch them in the stomach or fall down some stairs etc so it would get done as an "accident". There is no way to police it so why bother doing anything other than discussing the morality of it. I guess what I'm saying it, it doesn't matter if YOU are pro life or pro choice...its the pregnant womans choice and nobody elses. QFT. Double that! Double QFT.
Blazer wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:57 Women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their body. You could outlaw "abortion" but then they would just get a friend to punch them in the stomach or fall down some stairs etc so it would get done as an "accident". There is no way to police it so why bother doing anything other than discussing the morality of it. I guess what I'm saying it, it doesn't matter if YOU are pro life or pro choice...its the pregnant womans choice and nobody elses. Indeed.
Blazer wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 15:57 Women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their body. You could outlaw "abortion" but then they would just get a friend to punch them in the stomach or fall down some stairs etc so it would get done as an "accident". There is no way to police it so why bother doing anything other than discussing the morality of it. I guess what I'm saying it, it doesn't matter if YOU are pro life or pro choice...its the pregnant womans choice and nobody elses. I've seen documentaries where women use clothes hangers, illegal surgeries that are much more harmful, and have heard of the two instances you gave. I still don't believe abortion should be legal. I think women that go to these extremes are grossly uneducated about alternatives that could be taken. There are too many families that are willing to care for that child to let that life go to waste.
Jecht wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:29 Blazer wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 15:57 Women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their body. You could outlaw "abortion" but then they would just get a friend to punch them in the stomach or fall down some stairs etc so it would get done as an "accident". There is no way to police it so why bother doing anything other than discussing the morality of it. I guess what I'm saying it, it doesn't matter if YOU are pro life or pro choice...its the pregnant womans choice and nobody elses. I've seen documentaries where women use clothes hangers, illegal surgeries that are much more harmful, and have heard of the two instances you gave. I still don't believe abortion should be legal. I think women that go to these extremes are grossly uneducated about alternatives that could be taken. There are too many families that are willing to care for that child to let that life go to waste. We not living in some third world country, people know what they they can do with their babys if they don't want it, but if a women doesn't want to give birth, it is her choice.
Even though I support choice, it doesn't mean I think it's moral. However, I do think that it is better than being born and living life of suffering. To the people who say that innocent babies shouldn't be killed, why should the innocent babies be suffering?
IronWarrior wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 04:31 We not living in some third world country, people know what they they can do with their babys if they don't want it, but if a women doesn't want to give birth, it is her choice. You're telling me that a woman that risks their very life, infection, and/or the aftermath of possible guilt at the very least to avoid birthing a child is educated? Because those are some of the possibilities when abortion is illegal and a desperate woman does not know of the alternatives.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:52 It has nothing to do with personal morals if you view it as a child. Most, if not all of us, will agree that killing a person is a bad thing. I couldn't give a fuck less about what someone does to their body, but I'm not going to agree with abortion if I feel that it's murder. Thing is, is a less then 3 month old fetus a child/human, or something that might become a human (it might also fail to do that eh...) As it doesn't respond to stimuli, I would ay that it is not alive yet, every living thing responds to stimuli, one way or another.
Jecht wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 05:48 IronWarrior wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 04:31 We not living in some third world country, people know what they they can do with their babys if they don't want it, but if a women doesn't want to give birth, it is her choice. You're telling me that a woman that risks their very life, infection, and/or the aftermath of possible guilt at the very least to avoid birthing a child is educated? Because those are some of the possibilities when abortion is illegal and a desperate woman does not know of the alternatives. Everyone knows the ricks in smoking and drinking, but they still do it.
It's a pity that we don't have more female members, reading this, I noticed this is entirely male perspective on, essentially, a female issue.
Good thing my mom did not abort me
I have no parents. I wasn't born. I was just there one day.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 15:27 I have no parents. I wasn't born. I was just there one day. Like Adam?
First off, I don't agree with the words 'pro life or pro choice' seeing as 'pro choice' seems to still carry a negative connotation as opposed to 'pro life' I mean, if you're not 'pro life' you must be pro death, right? Anyway, I don't think abortion should be legal, unless the woman is in danger from the pregnancy, or the child would be born with a severely limiting physical or mental defect which would prevent it from living a normal life anyway.
it's okay if those kids die before they are born because it's all a part of god's plan
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:02 RoShamBo wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:37 Consider this; a human egg is released and destroyed every month if it isn't fertilized. Each and every one of them has the potential of turning into a contributer to our society. Yet if you would have read my post, you would see that the potential is completely different. So what? You're saying human eggs don't have the potential of turning into a working citizen? So, then, tell us how it really happens.
I think that as long as there is one reason for why having a child can harm someone or some other really negative effects (life threatening ones, not "Oh I don't want a baby" ones) than it should be alright. My opinion does not take into consideration any form of life that the baby itself would be. And I am also not saying it is alright to kill babies.. I just think that if there can be one problem, that is bad enough. It is a lot easier to have a set standard that to individualize each case by severity. I just think the act of an abortion doesn't outweigh the amount of problems that many other people would face from personal to life threatening problems for not only the parents, but those close to the parents as well. I also don't think it is any of my business, therefore I really couldn't care less if it was legal or not, at this point in time, anyway.
RoShamBo wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 20:06 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:02 RoShamBo wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:37 Consider this; a human egg is released and destroyed every month if it isn't fertilized. Each and every one of them has the potential of turning into a contributer to our society. Yet if you would have read my post, you would see that the potential is completely different. So what? You're saying human eggs don't have the potential of turning into a working citizen? So, then, tell us how it really happens. A human egg has absolutely zero potential to become a human by itself. You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...ect,ect.
Jecht wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 16:11 RoShamBo wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 20:06 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:02 RoShamBo wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:37 Consider this; a human egg is released and destroyed every month if it isn't fertilized. Each and every one of them has the potential of turning into a contributer to our society. Yet if you would have read my post, you would see that the potential is completely different. So what? You're saying human eggs don't have the potential of turning into a working citizen? So, then, tell us how it really happens. A human egg has absolutely zero potential to become a human by itself. You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...ect,ect. The potential is still there. If you put a rock on a ledge, it still has the potential to fall. It just needs a push.
The rock has to be on the edge of the cliff, first.
RoShamBo wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 17:42 Jecht wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 16:11 A human egg has absolutely zero potential to become a human by itself. You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...ect,ect. The potential is still there. If you put a rock on a ledge, it still has the potential to fall. It just needs a push. A flawed philosophical analogy at best.
I agree. Heres a better analogy. A chicken egg can turn into a Chicken. It can also turn into my breakfast. Are they the same? No. They're completely different. Until its a human. Its not a human. Lets just remind everyone: If you can't think, can't feel, can't act, can't do ANYTHING, I have some news for you....You aren't alive, and you most certainly aren't human. The ''child'' can't say HEY, DON'T KILL ME! They don't think, therefore, they don't care. The sad reality would be, if a 5 year old child were to die instantly, just vaporized into thin air, they would never know, and wouldn't be sad. Thats why its stupid to say things like ''Oh poor billy. He didn't even get the chance to have a life''. People forget. The dead person doesn't care, its YOU who cares. My view is, if the woman has a legitimate reason, or a reason that could keep from endangering society further, let her do it.
MWright967 wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 14:12 I agree. Heres a better analogy. A chicken egg can turn into a Chicken. It can also turn into my breakfast. Are they the same? No. They're completely different. Until its a human. Its not a human. Lets just remind everyone: If you can't think, can't feel, can't act, can't do ANYTHING, I have some news for you....You aren't alive, and you most certainly aren't human. The ''child'' can't say HEY, DON'T KILL ME! They don't think, therefore, they don't care. The sad reality would be, if a 5 year old child were to die instantly, just vaporized into thin air, they would never know, and wouldn't be sad. Thats why its stupid to say things like ''Oh poor billy. He didn't even get the chance to have a life''. People forget. The dead person doesn't care, its YOU who cares. My view is, if the woman has a legitimate reason, or a reason that could keep from endangering society further, let her do it. I think this is just about the first thing you've posted that I agree with.
Dover wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 16:28 MWright967 wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 14:12 I agree. Heres a better analogy. A chicken egg can turn into a Chicken. It can also turn into my breakfast. Are they the same? No. They're completely different. Until its a human. Its not a human. Lets just remind everyone: If you can't think, can't feel, can't act, can't do ANYTHING, I have some news for you....You aren't alive, and you most certainly aren't human. The ''child'' can't say HEY, DON'T KILL ME! They don't think, therefore, they don't care. The sad reality would be, if a 5 year old child were to die instantly, just vaporized into thin air, they would never know, and wouldn't be sad. Thats why its stupid to say things like ''Oh poor billy. He didn't even get the chance to have a life''. People forget. The dead person doesn't care, its YOU who cares. My view is, if the woman has a legitimate reason, or a reason that could keep from endangering society further, let her do it. I think this is just about the first thing you've posted that I agree with. Oh, no. You agreed with me that I was wrong about the rockets. Technically speaking
MWright967 wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 15:14 Dover wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 16:28 MWright967 wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 14:12 I agree. Heres a better analogy. A chicken egg can turn into a Chicken. It can also turn into my breakfast. Are they the same? No. They're completely different. Until its a human. Its not a human. Lets just remind everyone: If you can't think, can't feel, can't act, can't do ANYTHING, I have some news for you....You aren't alive, and you most certainly aren't human. The ''child'' can't say HEY, DON'T KILL ME! They don't think, therefore, they don't care. The sad reality would be, if a 5 year old child were to die instantly, just vaporized into thin air, they would never know, and wouldn't be sad. Thats why its stupid to say things like ''Oh poor billy. He didn't even get the chance to have a life''. People forget. The dead person doesn't care, its YOU who cares. My view is, if the woman has a legitimate reason, or a reason that could keep from endangering society further, let her do it. I think this is just about the first thing you've posted that I agree with. Oh, no. You agreed with me that I was wrong about the rockets. Technically speaking That was YOU agreeing with ME.
Dover wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 20:22 MWright967 wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 15:14 Dover wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 16:28 MWright967 wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 14:12 I agree. Heres a better analogy. A chicken egg can turn into a Chicken. It can also turn into my breakfast. Are they the same? No. They're completely different. Until its a human. Its not a human. Lets just remind everyone: If you can't think, can't feel, can't act, can't do ANYTHING, I have some news for you....You aren't alive, and you most certainly aren't human. The ''child'' can't say HEY, DON'T KILL ME! They don't think, therefore, they don't care. The sad reality would be, if a 5 year old child were to die instantly, just vaporized into thin air, they would never know, and wouldn't be sad. Thats why its stupid to say things like ''Oh poor billy. He didn't even get the chance to have a life''. People forget. The dead person doesn't care, its YOU who cares. My view is, if the woman has a legitimate reason, or a reason that could keep from endangering society further, let her do it. I think this is just about the first thing you've posted that I agree with. Oh, no. You agreed with me that I was wrong about the rockets. Technically speaking That was YOU agreeing with ME. Then I suppose we agree to disagree.