Kyonko

Jan 8 2009, 12:59 PM

Well you are saying I don't have the right to decide on if someone should die.

But who are you to decided that they should carry on living in pain?

If they can't communicate or arn't in a mind to make a sound decision, who is going to make it for them? Ultimatly there life is in the hands of someone else, that person then has to decide which they think is the best option.
That's ridiculous, because the person making the decision has no idea as to the wishes of the person in question. That's essentially a total stranger deciding to pull the plug on someone in a coma. Except it's different, because that embryo is GOING to be born. You're denying a living person his right to exist without his consent.

Have you ever had to have a pet put down? What makes that more right than having a persons life ended? Why is the animals life not as important as a persons life? If your pet is in pain and can't be treated, you have it put down, the same should follow for people, it's a pretty basic concept. Okay, I'm comparing pets to people but we have as much right to live on this planet as they do.
The qualifying factor for the right to life is humanity. We kill animals for food and other goods all the time. We don't kill humans for the simple reason that they are humans. A human life at any point in development is worth infinitely more than any animal's life. Period.

That's off the topic of abortion though, you might think it's wrong, but ultimatly, it is the mothers decision. If she was raped then giving birth to such a child could cause her even more emotional pain. With the complicated birth, what's to say the child is going to live anyway? If it doesn't live after the opperation for a cesierian, you are causing the mother unneeded emotional pain.
So you're saying that it's alright to kill a living person to save someone potential emotional trauma? No, that's not how it works. You're denying a person's right to live because something bad happened to you. Two wrongs do not make a right, and killing a baby doesn't change the fact that the mother was raped. And your other argument essentially states that it's alright to kill someone because they might die anyway. So then should we walk around slaughtering people with cancer against their will?

All in all, I feel the views of the mother should be protected over that of the life of a baby which would only end up in adotion or mistreated by it's mother. Nither of which are going to do a whole lot of good for the child are they?
You're still failing to grasp the core concept of my argument. Once again and for the last time, it is not for you to decide that someone else is better off dead than living in a tough situation. There are plenty of people who were adopted that have gone on to live great lives and accomplish great things. Many, many more people accomplished great things in spite of parental abuse. But you're saying that these people have no right to live. You may as well walk up to Dave Pelzer and shoot him in the face.

Kotetsu

Jan 8 2009, 10:09 PM

Embryo's don't have a voice, rights, complex thoughts, desires, ambitions...
A comparison of a human to an embryo is a very unfair comparison. There is nothing similar between an embryo and a Human other than DNA and organic material.
DNA and other organic material is exactly what classifies us as human. There are many living people who don't have voices or complex thoughts. They deserve to live. INFANTS are not sentient. They do not yet have individual thoughts, desires, ambitions, or voices. If ANY of those are the qualifier for the right to live then you just said that infants have no right to live. And as far as rights go, innocent until proven guilty. Being a human grants one human rights; that's why they call them human rights. In order for an embryo to lack human rights, you have to make a conscious decision to take them.

But still not mine or any other person's decision other than the mothers. It's not our bodies, it's not our blood, it's not our child. Stop trying to make decisions for other people, instead encourage adoption over abortion if you feel that it's still a terrible thing.
Biggest irony of all time. You're the one who is advocating killing people without their consent, and I'm the one who needs to stop making decisions for other people? Please. Why is it the mother's decision to end her child's right? Does a mother have the right to stomp on her newborn child's head?

And while we're on the subject, the "don't make decisions for other people" argument is idiotic. Example: I think theft is wrong. By saying that people shouldn't be able to steal, I'm making a decision for them. Should the be allowed to steal just because they made the decision? No, because their decision directly infringes upon the rights of another human being.

We are completely off topic though. Although many of you said it wasn't stated in the bible, and that it's a recent issue newer than the testaments itself. I guess that answers the question.

Quote:

 

You're still failing to grasp the core concept of my argument. Once again and for the last time, it is not for you to decide that someone else is better off dead than living in a tough situation. There are plenty of people who were adopted that have gone on to live great lives and accomplish great things. Many, many more people accomplished great things in spite of parental abuse. But you're saying that these people have no right to live. You may as well walk up to Dave Pelzer and shoot him in the face.

Quote:

 

A human life at any point in development is worth infinitely more than any animal's life. Period.

Famicommander

Jan 9 2009, 05:33 AM

Kotetsu

Jan 8 2009, 10:09 PM

Embryo's don't have a voice, rights, complex thoughts, desires, ambitions...
A comparison of a human to an embryo is a very unfair comparison. There is nothing similar between an embryo and a Human other than DNA and organic material.
DNA and other organic material is exactly what classifies us as human. There are many living people who don't have voices or complex thoughts. They deserve to live. INFANTS are not sentient. They do not yet have individual thoughts, desires, ambitions, or voices. If ANY of those are the qualifier for the right to live then you just said that infants have no right to live. And as far as rights go, innocent until proven guilty. Being a human grants one human rights; that's why they call them human rights. In order for an embryo to lack human rights, you have to make a conscious decision to take them.

But still not mine or any other person's decision other than the mothers. It's not our bodies, it's not our blood, it's not our child. Stop trying to make decisions for other people, instead encourage adoption over abortion if you feel that it's still a terrible thing.
Biggest irony of all time. You're the one who is advocating killing people without their consent, and I'm the one who needs to stop making decisions for other people? Please. Why is it the mother's decision to end her child's right? Does a mother have the right to stomp on her newborn child's head?

And while we're on the subject, the "don't make decisions for other people" argument is idiotic. Example: I think theft is wrong. By saying that people shouldn't be able to steal, I'm making a decision for them. Should the be allowed to steal just because they made the decision? No, because their decision directly infringes upon the rights of another human being.

We are completely off topic though. Although many of you said it wasn't stated in the bible, and that it's a recent issue newer than the testaments itself. I guess that answers the question.

Kyonko

Jan 9 2009, 11:54 AM

I'm not following why an animals life is more important than a humans life.
Really? So do you not eat hamburgers, or wear leather? Or do you simply also eat people and wear their skin? An animal will never be capable of anything that a human will be capable of. If left to its own devices, an animal will do what an animal always does. If a fetus is left to its own devices, it will become a functioning adult. It has human rights because it is a human. To take away its life is a violation of its human rights.

If I can have my pet put down because it's in too much untreatable pain, why can I have a relaltive euthanised because they are in too much untreatable pain?

It's ultimately the decision of the relative. You can't decide for another person that they should die without their consent. There are varying degrees of pain, but ALL pain can be treated to some degree. And it's for the person in question to decide whether he wants to deal with the amount of pain he is in. Pain tolerance is a subjective thing, and will to live varies from person to person.

My budgie had to be put down 2 and a half months ago because he had an untreatable pain. Yet you could see he didn't want to give up and you could also see he didn't want those around him to be upset from the way he acted. Of course he wasn't human so it's suddenly acceptable to have him put down?
It's not for me to decide whether it was acceptable to put him down. This one IS your decision, because you OWN the dog. The dog is your PROPERTY. People are not property.

Quote:

 

You're still failing to grasp the core concept of my argument. Once again and for the last time, it is not for you to decide that someone else is better off dead than living in a tough situation. There are plenty of people who were adopted that have gone on to live great lives and accomplish great things. Many, many more people accomplished great things in spite of parental abuse. But you're saying that these people have no right to live. You may as well walk up to Dave Pelzer and shoot him in the face.

I would actually say a large number end up on mental health medication, commiting suicide, commiting crimes or just doing nothing with themselfs. The only ones you are going to hear about are those who made something of their lives, ignoring those who didn't and wound up dead.
So it's alright to kill someone because there's a possibility that they'll lead a life that you deem unacceptable. So why can't you just go around taking babies away from unfit parents and killing them?

Adoption is diffrent to being abused but I imagin it still puts the adopted child at a greater disadvantage.

Only the point of abortion though, if the mother doesn't want the child for whatever reason, why should they have it? Aren't you essentially making that decision for her?
No, she's making the decision for another person that they have to die. I'm making the decision that someone cannot murder another person.

It's all fine and dandy saying that it has a right to live but if you aren't going to say that other animals have a right to life then your agrument doesn't deserve to be listened to. An animal has as much right to life as a person and more so than a fetus because the animal has already been born.

Quote:

 

A human life at any point in development is worth infinitely more than any animal's life. Period.

Why? What makes us so special? The fact that we can think and create technology? That's not a reason to say our life is worth more, an animal has as much right as a human to live and walk this planet.

I'd respect your argument a little more if you agreed that a living animal has as much right to life as a person. In my personal view, you can't choose to protect a human fetus and not animal life.

I can't believe you're even making this an issue. A fetus is no different than a newborn. Neither can think, want, speak, or make decisions. The only differences is that one is inside the mother and one is outside. But both are still wholly dependent on the mother for survival. So you're telling me that a dairy cow is worth more than a newborn.

Animals have the right to live. Just not as much as humans do. That's why we eat meat, wear fur, use leather, hunt, and fish. Do you think it's okay to eat a steak? If so, then by your logic it's also okay to eat a person. Except I KNOW you don't think cannibalism is alright, because you're a reasonable person. So why is eating meat okay, but eating people isn't? Because human lives are worth more than animal lives. Period.

Temphis

Jan 10 2009, 12:02 AM

Famicommander, I'm against abortion and you have a lot of good points, but I must say, you are incredibly overbearing. so much so I feel that all of what you say may be entierly ignored by anyone who feels differently then you. and I feel that in some cases, if their are certain circumstances like rape or health complications, it's unfair to call them a murderer for having an abortion if they chose to have one. you probably don't know what it's like to be in that situation, but I"m sure it's tough if your life is on the line. in most cases, I feel abortion isn't needed, and that even if the mother dosn't have the capacity to raise the child, she can resort to adoption, but that won't always result in a good outcome. sometimes the circumstances of this kind of stuff are too much for women to bear, so who am I to judge. I don't have all the answers either, but I would ask that you don't come out so strong in your oppenions, it's often offensive to others who don't agree, and it would be imature of you to continue to do so after people bring it up to you that your just trying to prove your point.

for the most part I completely agree with you though, and you do bring up points in a perspective thats easy to understand. however, the purpose of this forum was to say how "you feel", not "the way it is", so try to word your views as "I feel that" or "I believe that". that way you won't make people feel worse about themselves, or come off as a jerk with good motives.

NeciFiX

Jan 10 2009, 01:15 AM

Especially in unfortunate scenarios, like in rape. Two wrongs don't make a right. But, when the woman was raped, did she have a choice? No. She should have the choice with the child, instead of having the law force her along her path of being controlled.

Omniverse

Jan 10 2009, 03:11 AM

To abort a life is to kill it, no matter what the situation is. It is the choice that who makes has to deal with for the rest of there lives, but there is also the possibility of what the person could have done in there life. I feel that it should be the womens choice due to the fact that it is after all her body.

Kyonko

Jan 10 2009, 01:00 PM

I'm quite curious to know if you would live up to your belifes if you where raped and where having a child because of it. I'm sure it's a really hard choice to make but as Temphis said, it would be unfair to call the mother a murderer because she made the choice to abort.
No, it's not unfair. It's like calling water wet. Someone who willingly takes an innocent life without their consent is a murderer. And it wouldn't even be a "choice" for me, because I have principles.

It's not fair, it was beyond her control and although it is potential life, the body the fetus is in is her body which while the baby is inside her, makes it a part of her, it is connected to her, it is dependent on her.
It is a LIFE, not a POTENTIAL LIFE. It is already a living, growing human. And no, it is not a part of her. Is a newborn part of its mother while the umbilical cord is still connected? And newborns are also dependent upon their mothers. Does that give the mother the right to kill them? The circumstances surrounding the pregnancy do not devalue the life of the child. If the mother cannot handle it she should give the child up for adoption. She has no right to end an innocent life.

She didn't choose to be pregenent, someone made the choice for her, something you are stongly against.
I'd rather be pregnant than dead.

You can go around being anti-abortion as you please but you aren't going to know what it's like for those people unless you expriance it.
And you don't know what it's like to be killed for no reason.

I don't agree with abortion where the reason is just because they don't want the child. It should be allowed within reason, otherwise you are condeming 14 year old girls who have been raped, you are implying that they should have to have the child regardless of the risks it might pose for them physically in the future as well as the effects it will have on their school life.
The value of an innocent human life supersedes any inconveniences. Ask yourself: why is basic abortion wrong in the first place? If abortion is wrong, then it is also wrong in the case of rape. Being the result of a rape does not devalue the life of the child, which is something you deem worth protection if you think abortion in a normal case is wrong in the first place. Either a fetus is worth protecting or it isn't; there can be no grey area. Grey area shows a misunderstanding of the situation.

In essence you are taking away the childhood of that 14 year old girl by saying that they must have the child otherwise they are a murderer. [[A 14 year old girl who might grow up to be a great person if she had the chance to live her life. Why should the fetus take priotirity over someone who could become something great?]]
So it's alright to kill for personal gain. That's what you just said. There are PLENTY of people who had children early in life and went on to accomplish great things. It is not impossible. And this argument is incredibly ironic. This fetus also might grow up to be something great, if it had the chance to live its life. So what's worse, depriving someone of their life or making someone else's temporarily more difficult?

Temphis

Jan 10 2009, 02:02 PM

your not really cutting back at how strong your comming out, even after it's been brought up about 3 times, this is really quite dissapointing. I feel you've lost alot of convincing power in your argument, since you are completely unwilling to listen to what others say without providing a rebutle. I feel youv'e made your point, and that if you continue making posts like this, your just going to end up offending people and making them not enjoy posting in the same forms as you. though that is how I feel on the matter, I would invite you to "step back off your soap box" so that others arn't reluctant to stat how they feel.