|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:50 pm
Angel_at_Heart Quote: Quote: Even if she gives it up for adoption, the woman has to go through 9 months of hell with no reward at the end. This is a violation of her rights. Pregnancy is not Hell for every woman. My mother had virtually no side effects (apart from her stomach getting bigger, eating more, and then labour.) from the pregnancy. Nothing that could be considered "Hell". Life is not completely based on a reward system, perhaps it should be in an ideal world, but it's not. Simply because one doesn't get a reward doesn't mean that one can decide for someone else that they no longer get to live. While I agree that to some extent you must have the right to control your body (I'm for legalizing drugs, I'm for legalizing prostitution etc.) you must also draw the line at some point. There is a point at which someone else gets hurt, and you're no longer simply controlling your body you're controlling someone elses. For instance, you can legally drive with a license once you're 16. You can legally drink once you're 19, but once your blood/alcohol level is at a certain point you are no longer legally allowed to drive. Someone could argue that it's their body that is drunk and they're legally allowed to drink, and since they have their license they should be legally allowed to drive under the influence. However they can't because they may in turn hurt someone else, which is where the line is drawn. all they would say to that is "here is the price of live birth in the U.S. according to The Baby Center. com so most likely that would not work *nods* 3nodding True, true...she's right, unfortunately. Makes it hard to debate.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:14 pm
Angel_at_Heart Quote: Quote: Even if she gives it up for adoption, the woman has to go through 9 months of hell with no reward at the end. This is a violation of her rights. Pregnancy is not Hell for every woman. My mother had virtually no side effects (apart from her stomach getting bigger, eating more, and then labour.) from the pregnancy. Nothing that could be considered "Hell". Life is not completely based on a reward system, perhaps it should be in an ideal world, but it's not. Simply because one doesn't get a reward doesn't mean that one can decide for someone else that they no longer get to live. While I agree that to some extent you must have the right to control your body (I'm for legalizing drugs, I'm for legalizing prostitution etc.) you must also draw the line at some point. There is a point at which someone else gets hurt, and you're no longer simply controlling your body you're controlling someone elses. For instance, you can legally drive with a license once you're 16. You can legally drink once you're 19, but once your blood/alcohol level is at a certain point you are no longer legally allowed to drive. Someone could argue that it's their body that is drunk and they're legally allowed to drink, and since they have their license they should be legally allowed to drive under the influence. However they can't because they may in turn hurt someone else, which is where the line is drawn. all they would say to that is "here is the price of live birth in the U.S. according to The Baby Center. com so most likely that would not work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:14 am
I must say that this guild, particularly this thread is very helpful. I've recently finished a unit/debate on abortion in my ethics class and I am in University so the debate's are much more heated with people that have been in these situations and are therefore pro-abortionists, but I just come to the Pro-Life Guild to remind myself that I'm not the only one.
Miss A 4laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:57 pm
I'm glad that this thread was able to help those who need it. whee Keep fighting the good fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
~bumps for the newcomers~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:30 pm
Beware the Jabberwock ~bumps for the newcomers~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:06 pm
There is a new and scientific argument for this one. A study conducted in 97 has shown that in no part of development is the child part of the mothers body. If ther otherwise were ture, then the mothers immune system would not treat the child as a forighn entity and atempt to destroy and remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:51 pm
It's not a baby. It's a fetus. Quit trying to use "baby" as an emotional ploy, because it's not working. You're trying to make us see this: [Picture of a born baby wrapped in a white towel ever so cutely]
When in reality, this is what's being aborted: [Picture of a 5-week fetus, the size they usually claim is hardly ever aborted, and yell at you if you post pictures of one that has actually undergone an abortion]
Wrong. This is very common, don't fall for it, fellow lifers. Also, if you've fallen for this before, you can go ahead and post this back on the thread to correct them (don't worry if 50 people end up doing it; it's funny to see them get mad.)
baby ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. babies
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.
3. The youngest member of a family or group.
4. A very young animal.
5. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
6. Slang. A girl or young woman.
7. Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
8. Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.*
*Credits to Beware the Jabberwock
There are no Children in abortion. Just fetuses.
A person between birth and puberty.
An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.
A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
(Dictionary.com)
Again, this is one of my favorites. Post it on the ED thread, I don't care how many times it's been posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:46 pm
Diadema Quote: An unborn baby can't reason or interact with people. Therefore, it's not really a person, so we can kill it. What about children who are born with mental impairments that leave them without reason or the ability to interact with others? Are they non-persons that can be killed? What aobut people who go into comas? They cannot reason or interact with others. Do they cease to be person? Can we go ahead and kill them? Wouldn't the same logiv allow us to kill people who are unconscious or fast asleep? This definition of "person" is arbitrary and against sound philosophy, leading to conclusions that even many aboriton supporters wouldn't accept.
(I don't know if anyone's added to this or not, so I might be repeating someone else, but I'm tired at the moment and not up to reading everything here.)
The argument that they can't interact is false. Sonograms have seen twins playing with each other inside the womb, interacting regularly by 14 weeks. That argument assumes that they are incapable of interaction with people merely because, except in cases of twins, triplets, etc., there are no other people to interact with. Just because I can't interact with a person while I'm in a room by myself doesn't mean I can't when I am with a person.
Babies do interact with their environment as well as with their mother's enviroment and their own bodies. (If you really want to get technical, a baby's enviroment while still in the womb actually is another person.)
As for the reasoning part, I would think it's fair to say that if you cannot reason, you cannot learn. Learning involves drawing conclusions, and to do that, you must be able to reason out your conclusion, even if this maybe happens on a subconscious level. Babies learn inside the womb. For example, they learn a wide range of moment: walking (by bouncing around the womb), kicking, grasping, yawning, smiling, blinking their eyes. If they are able to learn these things, they must have some level of ability to reason.
(Feel free to point out any flaws in this. Like I said, I'm tired. I'm sure there are some.
The source for most of this is this article and a TV show from Discovery Channel about the same technology called In the Womb.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:59 am
I enjoyed reading this thread. If only I have more time to post, however. *sigh* sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:12 am
up you go for the new members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:57 am
i was skimming through-
how in the world does not killing her child make her a 50's housewife? if anything, it shows change and progression, taking us OUT of the 40's and 50's where people could be killed because they weren't considered to be on the same level.
i consider myself to be SO liberal, i stand for not only the rights of gays, women and blacks, but for unborn people as well. how's that one for ya, damned conservative choicers? rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:24 am
I was gunna b***h smack the member who necroed this thread, but now that I see it was Miranda...I'll have to get out my +10 guantlet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:28 am
Tiger of the Fire I was gunna b***h smack the member who necroed this thread, but now that I see it was Miranda...I'll have to get out my +10 guantlet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
