Vivian on 1/6/2009 at 21:40
Quote Posted by Random_Taffer
I was throwing you a bone. Evidently, I missed. Sorry, I'll aim lower next time.
Snappy. Here's a thought experiment: lets imagine two babies, one intended and planned for born into a nice, financially and emotionally stable two-person relationship, one the result of a one night stand born to a mother who neither wanted it nor was sufficiently financially stable to care for it. Given the options available for unwanted children (either adoption, which works but is hardly a certain occurence, impersonal state care, or a childhood of neglect and poverty), which do think is more likely to end up desperate enough and with a suitably skewed view of society and human relationships to become a socially maladjusted 'bad' person? Yes yes, it's not a guaranteed thing that unwanted kids turn out bad and loved kids turn out not to be fucktards, but if you take that bias and multiply it by a few thousand times you have a substantial cause of problems. Get it?
SubJeff on 1/6/2009 at 21:43
Quote Posted by Displacer
I won't get into a pissing match about a woman's "right to choose". In my personal opinion a child's life should not be a choice. Again its just splitting hairs by saying its not a life until its born. If you can look at a ultrasound and say what you are seeing is not a real life, then you have more problems than can be solved on a forum. That's just my opinion, which has nothing to do with the other issue.
I agree with you in terms of "what is life?", for sure. A foetus of any age is life.
As to the other bit - really what you are expressing is a desire to force all women who are pregnant to carry their child to term. Is that not so? Because that's what a statement like "child's life should not be a choice" says to me.
Nicker on 1/6/2009 at 21:44
Displacer et al - Is it your womb?
No?
Then mind your own fucking business.
van HellSing on 1/6/2009 at 21:55
Quote Posted by Vivian
Snappy. Here's a thought experiment: lets imagine two babies, one intended and planned for born into a nice, financially and emotionally stable two-person relationship, one the result of a one night stand born to a mother who neither wanted it nor was sufficiently financially stable to care for it. Given the options available for unwanted children (either adoption, which works but is hardly a certain occurence, impersonal state care, or a childhood of neglect and poverty), which do think is more likely to end up desperate enough and with a suitably skewed view of society and human relationships to become a socially maladjusted 'bad' person? Yes yes, it's not a guaranteed thing that unwanted kids turn out bad and loved kids turn out not to be fucktards, but if you take that bias and multiply it by a few thousand times you have a substantial cause of problems. Get it?
Nice 'stache there, Adolf.
metal dawn on 1/6/2009 at 21:56
LOL more boring pro-choice/pro-life propaganda
van HellSing on 1/6/2009 at 21:59
Quote Posted by metal dawn
LOL I'm too insecure to form an opinion myself, so I'll just berate both sides
LOL
kidmystik101 on 1/6/2009 at 22:00
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I agree with you in terms of "what is life?", for sure. A foetus of any age is life.
Life, but not sentience. What's wrong with removing a fetus early on in the pregnancy? It's nothing but meat at that stage, it is NOT a human being.
Remember (
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/) this? That's not a human being, thats a fucking mutant. It has NO BRAIN. It doesn't feel pain, It doesn't think, have a personality, It doesn't learn. You tell me that shouldn't have been aborted (and personally the mother should have been shot for going through with the birth..)
Chimpy Chompy on 1/6/2009 at 22:04
Quote Posted by Brethren
I also think that the argument that "women shouldn't be told what to do with their bodies" is faulty.
Hmm. My problem with that line is, it assumes that we've already decided the fetus isn't morally a person like you or I. And therefore this is just a question of what's happening to one person - that woman.
Obvious Team Pro Life doesn't share that assumption. It thinks the fetus Is morally a person (often from day one) and so we're talking decisions affecting two people, one of whom could lose their life.
So people just yell at each other uselessly instead of addressing the core points on which they differ.
So I'm guess Demagogue's posts (which I should really sit down and read properly) are the most interesting thing going on here. As in, trying to pin down when that fetus does become a person. Conception seems an unsatisfactory answer but so does birth.
van HellSing on 1/6/2009 at 22:05
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Yes. If there's one thing the Nazis were known for, it was their stance that circumstances trumped genetic lines.
Classifying people of worthy and unworthy of living based on arbitrary stuff?
metal dawn on 1/6/2009 at 22:07
Quote Posted by van HellSing
LOL
Because there are never enough of these threads.
