BF2S Forums Wave of anti-abortion Bills sweeps US

bitch was trying to get me to give her like 400 bucks for the process.  I found it it costs less than a 100.  I didnt give her shit.  bitch was trying to catch nordstrom sales with abortion money

UnkleRukus wrote:

So what if it was a victim of sexual assault, is it still immoral then?

Shocking wrote:

No they haven't, but there is no argument to pinpoint an essential difference that seperates us from the animal kingdom, we simply have dramatically enhanced versions of capabilities which many animals possess.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I don't even know what you said.

My point was that no animal has demonstrated the ability to enter space through thought(and usage of that thought) alone, which demonstrates something unique within humans. Whether or not that's some immeasurable sense or simply a combination of just the right attributes isn't something that can easily be debated at this point (nor is it necessary for the issue), as its not up for debate whether or not human life is given more value in a moral sense, it IS given more value in a moral sense. The question then becomes how do you define a human life, and that's what leads me to the conclusion that I draw.

Outside the womb, so effectively a born baby.

No, I got that. I'm just wondering how that makes it more human. It makes it further through development, certainly, but I don't know about more human. I think human is human.

In defining human life? I'm a bit lost now. Don't think so else we could regard everyone from age 0-4 as being sub-humans, which is obviously a bit strange.

Well, that's my point. That's what confuses me. A lot of the arguments from the other side have been about how little the fetus is capable of perceiving, and I never thought its present state of awareness was all that relevant. If you weren't the one who made that point I apologize.

Alright now throwing all the minute details out, lets compare it to a self-building car with the 24 week old fetus being the engine block.

But isn't that different? Assuming you go and STOP that self-building car, did you not stop a car from existing? As opposed to deciding not to build a car(inaction), you're actively destroying the machine to prevent the car from being made(action), thus you're responsible for that cars non-existence. That's the difference and what I meant by "action vs inaction".

The child, as being a fetus, I can't consider anywhere remotely human... but I think we've gone over this several times already. Your view being that it's one continuous process with every step being at least as important as the previous; I don't think so.

Every step thereafter birth is that way, why not before?

I don't see it as a innocent human as it doesn't fit the very definition.

Of human? Or Innocent? I'm sure it fits innocent, and the definition human is up for debate. Clearly if "human" had an obvious definition this wouldn't even be an issue.

It's in a premature state, it cannot comprehend anything, an empty shell if you will.

Presently. Do you see how that's taking the present condition and applying to any possible condition that fetus may have? By aborting you stop a consciousness from being, that's not up for debate. My question why does it matter if you stop that consciousness from being while its in the belly or wait until it comes out of the womb?

The 24 week barrier was conventionally defined because 1; brain activity starts in the 25th week, so people see this as the real start of what it means to be human, and 2; the woman's health gets endangered by removing a fetus after having carried it for 20+ weeks, with it getting more dangerous over time.

I know that. I just don't see how its relevant.

I think this comes down to something fundemental; you believing that human beings have no right to interfere with life, me believing that humans control their own world, I have never seen, and really see no divine purpose or creation in life as we know it.

No. I believe humans shouldn't have the right to kill other humans, especially when those humans are innocent. I'm more than okay with humans "Interfering with life" as long as its their life to interfere with.

I find it strange that you would advocate putting the kid on this world yet do not care for the mother or whatever happens afterwards to the kid;

Never said that either. I said the kid should have a chance. The fact of the matter is, that kid will die. You will die. I will die. That guy who doesn't understand my space reference will die. That other guy who was talking about fetuses shaking hands will die. The earth will die, the sun will die, the universe will die. Everything dies. My point isn't that the kid shouldn't, of course it will die. My point is it should have a chance at life before it does, just as everyone gets.

being born is just the beginning, there is so much more that is needed to help a life be succesful. A mother, happy living and healthy social interaction being vital parts to that. If a mother is uncertain wether or not she can provide any of that for the kid, I can't raise any moral objection to her decision. Nor do I feel that I should, I'm not really into the whole life ruining thing. Caring for those who are alive, real human beings is more important than looking out for empty shells.

Not every life will be perfect, even if every woman who wants it gets an abortion. My point is that it isn't for her to decide if the child's live won't be worth living. That's the child's choice alone. You can say its an empty shell all you want but the fact of the matter is it will become a person unless someone or something stops it. And thus, like your self building car, stopping that development is stopping a human life, IE. murder.

end your suffering.

HaiBai wrote:

Jay wrote:

So, I guess I do have a point now after all. People who are anti-abortion: good on ya. You're willing to raise a kid no matter what the circumstances. Potentially sucks for your kid, but whatever, you get to chill with god when you die (or something).

what the fuck?  i just don't understand this argument.  i would be anti-abortion even if i was atheist.  catholics aren't anti-abortion simply because the church said they should (at least they shouldn't be).

by the way, ask anyone who was almost aborted during birth.  do you think any of those people will say that they wish their parents had aborted them?  no, of course not.  it's silly that you think a kid would be better off dead because you don't want him to suffer.  if you make this argument, then why not kill all the children who have defects to "end their suffering"?

Your arguments mimic the Catholic line. Are you really going to try and say that your church had no influence on your thought process? Fuck off.

So anyone who's pro-choice is absent of morals? LoL

anyone who wishes that they were dead are sick people

HaiBai wrote:

anyone who wishes that they were dead are sick people

You're a bigger retard than I ever imagined.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lol there are people who wish they were never born all over the world. stop talking shite.

like Mekstizzle, amirite?

Most cases were from Europe and North America (82.2%). The majority (98%) of these had a diagnosis of at least one mental disorder. Among all diagnoses, mood disorders accounted for 30.2%, followed by substance-use related disorders (17.6%), schizophrenia (14.1%), and personality disorders (13.0%).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15580849

yeah, im sure suicide has nothing to do with being sick

burnzz wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lol there are people who wish they were never born all over the world. stop talking shite.

like Mekstizzle, amirite?

eleven bravo wrote:

I wish he was never born

rite.

haibai is one of those people who lives in a sheltered world and thinks he knows everything because of tv and the internet(plus whatever his church/parents tell him).

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2011-03-29 10:48:31)

HaiBai wrote:

by the way, ask anyone who was almost aborted during birth.  do you think any of those people will say that they wish their parents had aborted them?  no, of course not.  it's silly that you think a kid would be better off dead because you don't want him to suffer.  if you make this argument, then why not kill all the children who have defects to "end their suffering"?

It's a combination of circumstances that lead people to consider abortion, not just one or the other - only in extreme cases people abort because of the sole reason that they don't want to see their kid suffer (see; africa). Also, asking people "would you want to be aborted" is a bit of a strange statement as I can't consider my fetus self as being me, and even if it were I don't think I had the mental capacity to give a shit at that point.

It's a stupid argument all around actually.

Obviously the people who didn't abort figured the baby would be worth it.

Jay wrote:

Your arguments mimic the Catholic line.

Catholics actually mostly allowed abortion through most of the dark/middle ages and rennaisance as far as I know.