I might have the wrong person, but was it you who said they aren't living because if taken out of the womb they wouldn't survive? If so, what about a 30 women who's hooked up to machines in a hospital, and can't survive without them? Maybe I'm being dense for asking that but I can't get it off my mind.
You mean a 30 year old woman? She would still count as her "own life" because her life could not be attributed to anyone else, unlike an unborn child who could reasonably be said to be part of her mother. Technically, if you were in a coma, a family member could choose to "abort" you even as an adult if there was no hope, so maybe there is no difference between the two.
Except people have a real hard time 'pulling the plug'. Many refuse (Terry Schaivo case, as an example). So, what's worse? An abortion or a person kept alive by artficial means?
What about a quadriplegic? Or a mentally retarded person? They can't live without help. Let's kill 'em!! I don't want to take care of them.
Your arguements don't make sense, why can't you just admit that an unborn baby is alive and it's 'wrong' or imprudent to interrupt that? You can still be OK with abortion but you don't need to make all kinds of excuses to bolster your position.
I think the divide between pros and cons is just that the silly arguements they both make. Why argue about when life starts? There's no answer to that (yet), so WHY bother? Can't you just be in favor of choice but still think it's not really right instead of having to try to justify it with 'facts' that aren't even 'facts'?
How can you be in favour of something without being able to justify it or have reasons to have opinions? It doesn't make sense to me that you could hold opinions WITHOUT bolstering them.
If you don't give reasons, THAT is when arguements STOP making sense.
I've already explained why I think an adult is different from an unborn child. I'm not explaining again.
How? Because you don't always HAVE to be 'right', it's not always a trial where you need to present evidence. Sometimes, yes, but not always. Sometimes you can just FEEL that something is wrong or right, not for you, not your 'bag', or something you like.... or whatever. There's not always a factual answer or any evidence, and to try to make 'evidence' out of things that can't even be proven in the least is stupid. STUPID. Why bother? All it does is end all productive discussion and make both parties angry, and no one gets anywhere, and the opposing side usually gets even more mad than before which only makes things WORSE for your side.
Take God....there's no tangible proof of or against. But people are religious....MANY, MANY peipole are. Does that get through to you? And imagine how it angers religious people when you spout off that 'there's no proof of God'....So, why bother? Why divide? Why make an arguement when being more peaceful and cooperative about it would benefit everyone instead of inciting anger?
I could not disagree more with your entire first paragraph. Firstly, just having a gut feeling is not grounds to believe anything. It goes against critical thinking. I don't think you can make a worthwhile arguement unless you can apply evidence to it, otherwise you are simply giving uninformed opinion. Uniformed opinion is worthless.
Secondly, basing an arguement on uninformed opinion is what is stupid, and counter-productive to discussion. How can a discussion be productive if neither side can submit evidence? They would simply be spouting rhetoric, and that isn't productive at all. To say that bringing order and evidence to such proceedings in fact makes a discussion LESS PRODUCTIVE is frankly ridiculous.
Then there's the second paragraph... I try not to get involved in religious discussion any more because it has few, if any, real world implications. I DO get involved in discussions about morality because I believe inciting anger is a fair sacrifice if that is what it takes to getting to an answer which could have some real world benefit. THAT is why I bother.
I believe it is wrong to make friends at the expense of finding truth.
Do You Think Abortion Is ok?
← View full post
Yes, in any situation so long as the pregnancy isn't too far along. I don't view a fetus to be a life.
--
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I might have the wrong person, but was it you who said they aren't living because if taken out of the womb they wouldn't survive? If so, what about a 30 women who's hooked up to machines in a hospital, and can't survive without them? Maybe I'm being dense for asking that but I can't get it off my mind.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, it was me who said that.
You mean a 30 year old woman? She would still count as her "own life" because her life could not be attributed to anyone else, unlike an unborn child who could reasonably be said to be part of her mother. Technically, if you were in a coma, a family member could choose to "abort" you even as an adult if there was no hope, so maybe there is no difference between the two.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Except people have a real hard time 'pulling the plug'. Many refuse (Terry Schaivo case, as an example). So, what's worse? An abortion or a person kept alive by artficial means?
What about a quadriplegic? Or a mentally retarded person? They can't live without help. Let's kill 'em!! I don't want to take care of them.
Your arguements don't make sense, why can't you just admit that an unborn baby is alive and it's 'wrong' or imprudent to interrupt that? You can still be OK with abortion but you don't need to make all kinds of excuses to bolster your position.
I think the divide between pros and cons is just that the silly arguements they both make. Why argue about when life starts? There's no answer to that (yet), so WHY bother? Can't you just be in favor of choice but still think it's not really right instead of having to try to justify it with 'facts' that aren't even 'facts'?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How can you be in favour of something without being able to justify it or have reasons to have opinions? It doesn't make sense to me that you could hold opinions WITHOUT bolstering them.
If you don't give reasons, THAT is when arguements STOP making sense.
I've already explained why I think an adult is different from an unborn child. I'm not explaining again.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How? Because you don't always HAVE to be 'right', it's not always a trial where you need to present evidence. Sometimes, yes, but not always. Sometimes you can just FEEL that something is wrong or right, not for you, not your 'bag', or something you like.... or whatever. There's not always a factual answer or any evidence, and to try to make 'evidence' out of things that can't even be proven in the least is stupid. STUPID. Why bother? All it does is end all productive discussion and make both parties angry, and no one gets anywhere, and the opposing side usually gets even more mad than before which only makes things WORSE for your side.
Take God....there's no tangible proof of or against. But people are religious....MANY, MANY peipole are. Does that get through to you? And imagine how it angers religious people when you spout off that 'there's no proof of God'....So, why bother? Why divide? Why make an arguement when being more peaceful and cooperative about it would benefit everyone instead of inciting anger?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I could not disagree more with your entire first paragraph. Firstly, just having a gut feeling is not grounds to believe anything. It goes against critical thinking. I don't think you can make a worthwhile arguement unless you can apply evidence to it, otherwise you are simply giving uninformed opinion. Uniformed opinion is worthless.
Secondly, basing an arguement on uninformed opinion is what is stupid, and counter-productive to discussion. How can a discussion be productive if neither side can submit evidence? They would simply be spouting rhetoric, and that isn't productive at all. To say that bringing order and evidence to such proceedings in fact makes a discussion LESS PRODUCTIVE is frankly ridiculous.
Then there's the second paragraph... I try not to get involved in religious discussion any more because it has few, if any, real world implications. I DO get involved in discussions about morality because I believe inciting anger is a fair sacrifice if that is what it takes to getting to an answer which could have some real world benefit. THAT is why I bother.
I believe it is wrong to make friends at the expense of finding truth.