Abortion
- Thread starter Canadian Dragon
- Start date
A child must be born first, Life may begin at the fertilization of the egg...but it doesn't happen until birth.
I am merely trying to point a contridiction in your philosophy overall.
Let's take as an example, an impoverished crack addicted pregnant woman with aids. You seem to be under the impression that it will be easy to find adoptive parents for such a child. We now have a child that is predisposed to an addiction and has a deadly communicable disease. You think it is better to bring this child into a world where the child will go through a great deal of suffering, than to terminate its suffering before they have a chance to occur.
I undertstand that you feel it is noble to save all potential human lives...but is it noble to bring forth a life that will face a great deal of suffering? Is it the right thing to do to bring a child into the world that can spread an infetious disease ? This has the potential to spread a diseaese further, inflicting more suffering on others. Is it really the path, that we,as a society, should really follow ? At some point, we have to look at what is best for society as a whole.
I am merely trying to point a contridiction in your philosophy overall.
Let's take as an example, an impoverished crack addicted pregnant woman with aids. You seem to be under the impression that it will be easy to find adoptive parents for such a child. We now have a child that is predisposed to an addiction and has a deadly communicable disease. You think it is better to bring this child into a world where the child will go through a great deal of suffering, than to terminate its suffering before they have a chance to occur.
I undertstand that you feel it is noble to save all potential human lives...but is it noble to bring forth a life that will face a great deal of suffering? Is it the right thing to do to bring a child into the world that can spread an infetious disease ? This has the potential to spread a diseaese further, inflicting more suffering on others. Is it really the path, that we,as a society, should really follow ? At some point, we have to look at what is best for society as a whole.
Zen,
Firstly, that child WILL find a loving home. There are many, many examples of just such cases and sure the babies are more difficult to place but very, very few are ever not adopted.
To use your analogy, that a to bring a child into the world with an infectious disease that will spread to others must be stopped or that a child will lead a very difficult life if it has certain maladies.
Does this mean that doctors should have syringes ready for every AIDS diagnosed patient, or cancer(it very painful) and after telling them the diagnosis they are immediately euthanized??? Does that make sense to you???
Remember from a pro-life viewpoint, all life is equal. We believe that life begins at conception and so anything you want to do to the fetus, in our view, should be done to a 5, 15, 25, or 65 year old.
You claim I have a contradiction in my philosophy, however, I don't see it in your post.
I guess you'll have to be more explicit. That is, I say this and then make a point that immediately counters the previous point.
Firstly, that child WILL find a loving home. There are many, many examples of just such cases and sure the babies are more difficult to place but very, very few are ever not adopted.
To use your analogy, that a to bring a child into the world with an infectious disease that will spread to others must be stopped or that a child will lead a very difficult life if it has certain maladies.
Does this mean that doctors should have syringes ready for every AIDS diagnosed patient, or cancer(it very painful) and after telling them the diagnosis they are immediately euthanized??? Does that make sense to you???
Remember from a pro-life viewpoint, all life is equal. We believe that life begins at conception and so anything you want to do to the fetus, in our view, should be done to a 5, 15, 25, or 65 year old.
You claim I have a contradiction in my philosophy, however, I don't see it in your post.
I guess you'll have to be more explicit. That is, I say this and then make a point that immediately counters the previous point.
Life begins at birth..no contridiction it is a pretty simple concept.
Doctors can be at the ready ...but it is the decision of the mother. That is why the fair thing to do is to leave it as a choice.
In your opinion then...it is more humane to watch something ( child, dog, deer,etc) suffer than to prevent that suffering.
As for your philosophy, I am speaking of your posts in general.
Doctors can be at the ready ...but it is the decision of the mother. That is why the fair thing to do is to leave it as a choice.
In your opinion then...it is more humane to watch something ( child, dog, deer,etc) suffer than to prevent that suffering.
As for your philosophy, I am speaking of your posts in general.
Zen,
As I've stated many times, the big contention is when does life begin. For pro-abortion people they believe it is once the baby is born, for pro-life people it is at conception.
Since there is no agreement in that area, the likelihood of agreement with regard to abortion will probably never happen.
Pro-life people see suffering as simply a part of life. Please see the debate with regard to Euthanasia.
I still don't understand the contradiction in my philosophy that you have indicated.
With regard to the doctor ready with syringe, I was referring to any patient not just a new-born infant. If you believe that a fetus shouldn't be made to suffer and you don't believe that a fetus is human than surely you would want to ensure that humans don't suffer and thus should be euthansized as soon as they are diagnosed with cancer or AIDS, etc.
As I've stated many times, the big contention is when does life begin. For pro-abortion people they believe it is once the baby is born, for pro-life people it is at conception.
Since there is no agreement in that area, the likelihood of agreement with regard to abortion will probably never happen.
Pro-life people see suffering as simply a part of life. Please see the debate with regard to Euthanasia.
I still don't understand the contradiction in my philosophy that you have indicated.
With regard to the doctor ready with syringe, I was referring to any patient not just a new-born infant. If you believe that a fetus shouldn't be made to suffer and you don't believe that a fetus is human than surely you would want to ensure that humans don't suffer and thus should be euthansized as soon as they are diagnosed with cancer or AIDS, etc.
I've found some useful non-partisan resources regarding abortion...
This page explains in great detail how to assess the validity of internet information you may read and reference...
Here's a few links that I found by searching this site...
http://biome.ac.uk/
Search parameter: induced abortion
Search parameter: legal abortion
One result of search parameter: abortion
...bottom line is, that most of the world has accepted that legal and safe abortion is necessary and beneficial for a progressive and equitable society...
This page explains in great detail how to assess the validity of internet information you may read and reference...
Here's a few links that I found by searching this site...
http://biome.ac.uk/
Search parameter: induced abortion
Search parameter: legal abortion
One result of search parameter: abortion
...bottom line is, that most of the world has accepted that legal and safe abortion is necessary and beneficial for a progressive and equitable society...
Zen,
I know your position with regards to the abortion question. It just seemed that you didn't understand the pro-life position that ALL life is to be treated with respect and dignity.
And with respect to abortion, that any law(or lack of law) for the unborn should be exactly the same as for those already born.
We could probably debate for the next 50 years and we would both completely understand the other's position and still not make any progress.
Until scientists come forward and declare a "time" that life begins the debate is probably useless.
I know your position with regards to the abortion question. It just seemed that you didn't understand the pro-life position that ALL life is to be treated with respect and dignity.
And with respect to abortion, that any law(or lack of law) for the unborn should be exactly the same as for those already born.
We could probably debate for the next 50 years and we would both completely understand the other's position and still not make any progress.
Until scientists come forward and declare a "time" that life begins the debate is probably useless.
I don't believe that life begins at conception at all, I believe that life begins before that...that the spermatazoa, the seeds of life are where life truly begins...
In light of this new revelation, I offer myself up to the Internation Court of Justice on charges of genocide... :twisted:
*Pack my bags honey, I'm going to the Hague*
In light of this new revelation, I offer myself up to the Internation Court of Justice on charges of genocide... :twisted:
*Pack my bags honey, I'm going to the Hague*
:lol:
tibear said:
tibear said:
I'm almost tempted to give you my address...that would be most amusing to have pro-lifers picketting my house... :lol: :lol: :lol:
You know what is so amazing here, the bahe de bahe about the childern, and how all the mothers to be need help and the saintly anti choice group is gonna do just that...yet the same group of people do not support a national daycare system. Someone please tell what is up with that??????????
What does pro-life have to do with paying someone to take care of someone else's children????
The national daycare system is simply a way to get as many people out of their homes and paying taxes as possible. It has nothing to do with actual child care. You know it and I know it.
The national daycare system is simply a way to get as many people out of their homes and paying taxes as possible. It has nothing to do with actual child care. You know it and I know it.
well ehm...lets see I know alot of single mothers who would use this national daycare...not just a few, alot. They find it hard to live on social assistance, and grow weary of kraft dinner. But you know if they had abortions...well than they would not need daycare would they...My point is you are full of it!!!
Re: RE: Abortion
ALL LIFE...That is a most interesting statement. This would mean that all prolifers would have to be breatharians or dirt eaters. They couldn't be Vegan because that involve destroying plant life. :twisted:
I understand the "prolife" position fine. As I said before this issue is about choice. That is what the "prolifers" fail to realize. That's what you and prolifers fail to see. It is why when we punish people we take away their freedom and their right to choose.
tibear said:
ALL LIFE...That is a most interesting statement. This would mean that all prolifers would have to be breatharians or dirt eaters. They couldn't be Vegan because that involve destroying plant life. :twisted:
I understand the "prolife" position fine. As I said before this issue is about choice. That is what the "prolifers" fail to realize. That's what you and prolifers fail to see. It is why when we punish people we take away their freedom and their right to choose.
Zen,
I see the difference between pro-life and pro-abortion is very similar to the difference "PETA" people and the "non-PETA" people.
The pro-life people recognize fetuses as human and thus worthy of protection whereas pro-abortion people don't recognize fetuses as human.
Similarly, the PETA people see animals and humans as having similar "value" and thus want the animals to have the same protection and "right-to-life" as humans, whereas the non-PETA people see humans as superior to animals. Generally speaking, most people will not be in favour of cruelty to animals but have no problem in domesticating and slaughtering them for food.
Just as the PETA people want to take away the choice of people to "use" animals in their diet, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc.
Do you see the animal rights people in the same light as the pro-life people??
I see the difference between pro-life and pro-abortion is very similar to the difference "PETA" people and the "non-PETA" people.
The pro-life people recognize fetuses as human and thus worthy of protection whereas pro-abortion people don't recognize fetuses as human.
Similarly, the PETA people see animals and humans as having similar "value" and thus want the animals to have the same protection and "right-to-life" as humans, whereas the non-PETA people see humans as superior to animals. Generally speaking, most people will not be in favour of cruelty to animals but have no problem in domesticating and slaughtering them for food.
Just as the PETA people want to take away the choice of people to "use" animals in their diet, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc.
Do you see the animal rights people in the same light as the pro-life people??