'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

Why should someone who never wishes to have a child go their whole life without sex, JUST IN CASE that extra-safe condom they were wearing ruptures, JUST IN CASE their surgical sterilization fails (yes, I plan to have this done...). Would you tell someone who does not wish to suffer injuries in a car crash that they should simply never get into a car, no matter how responsible the driver is?

The analogy of driving a car does not apply, though.

We have to use some form of transportation, live somewhere, eat something, do something to earn a living (all of which are potentially dangerous or fatal activities in some way) - or we die.

But we do not have to have sex for the sake of pleasure.

We do need pleasure, but there are forms of pleasure that are much more harmless than casual sex.
 
You are free to believe that a foetus has equal rights but your freedom ends with you and your own body, you have no right to extend your beliefs in an attempt to end the choices of other women and what they do with their bodies.

As a matter of fact, as a citizen and voter in a democratic country, she has that right. That right is granted to her (and all other citizens/voters) simply by the constitution and the various institutes of the state.

If you want to take that right away from people, this means you have to forbid voting and democracy.
 
The analogy of driving a car does not apply, though.

We have to use some form of transportation, live somewhere, eat something, do something to earn a living (all of which are potentially dangerous or fatal activities in some way) - or we die.

But we do not have to have sex for the sake of pleasure.

We do need pleasure, but there are forms of pleasure that are much more harmless than casual sex.

And you do not HAVE to drive...if you really really wanted to avoid that crash, you could get up at silly a.m. and cycle to work, right? But that would be focusing on the 1% and ignoring the 99% just as pro-so-called-lifers do.
 
The analogy of driving a car does not apply, though.

We have to use some form of transportation, live somewhere, eat something, do something to earn a living (all of which are potentially dangerous or fatal activities in some way) - or we die.

But we do not have to have sex for the sake of pleasure.

We do need pleasure, but there are forms of pleasure that are much more harmless than casual sex.

Sure it does. There are many other methods of transportation that are much safer than a car, they just aren't as practical or cheap. Just like there are other activities that can be done to replace the intimacy and pleasure that sex can bring, but they are not always just as satisfying. However to me is seems far more cruel to expect someone to never have sex than it is to expect them to always take the bus.
 
I am really fucking revolted at hearing how refusing to undergo suffering, invasion and pain is 'murder'.

It would be bad enough if we were talking about an actual person. But calling even a zygote a person and describing its removal as murder...is just sick.
 
I am really fucking revolted at hearing how refusing to undergo suffering, invasion and pain is 'murder'.

It would be bad enough if we were talking about an actual person. But calling even a zygote a person and describing its removal as murder...is just sick.

It's sort of anthropomorphism, isn't it? People giving thoughts, desires, and feelings to a cluster of dividing cells. No sane person scientist or otherwise would say has any of those. Embryos probably don't think about much if anything at all. House plants probably think more than they do. One day these embryos will of course have thoughts and desires, but it probably isn't between 6 and 8 weeks of gestation which is when most abortions take place.
 
The analogy of driving a car does not apply, though.

We have to use some form of transportation, live somewhere, eat something, do something to earn a living (all of which are potentially dangerous or fatal activities in some way) - or we die.

But we do not have to have sex for the sake of pleasure.

We do need pleasure, but there are forms of pleasure that are much more harmless than casual sex.

Wrong! Its one of natures strongest urges AND...


IS SEX NECESSARY?

Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

- IMPROVED SENSE OF SMELL: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.

- REDUCED RISK OF HEART DISEASE: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."

- WEIGHT LOSS, OVERALL FITNESS: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.

- REDUCED DEPRESSION: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.

- PAIN RELIEF: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

- LESS FREQUENT COLDS & FLU: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.

- BETTER BLADDER CONTROL: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.

- BETTER TEETH: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.

- A HAPPIER PROSTATE: Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

While possession of a robust appetite for sex--and the physical ability to gratify it--may not always be the cynosure of perfect health, a reluctance to engage can be a sign that something is seriously on the fritz, especially where the culprit is an infirm erection.

Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, observes that erectile dysfunction is extension of vascular system. A lethargic member may be telling you that you have diseased blood vessels elsewhere in your body. "It could be a first sign of hypertension or diabetes or increased cholesterol levels. It's a red flag that you should see your doctor." Treatment and exercise, says Dr. Eid, can have things looking up again: "Men who exercise and have a good heart and low heart rate, and who are cardio-fit, have firmer erections. There very definitely is a relationship."

But is there such a thing as too much sex?

The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you're female, probably not. If you're male? You betcha.

Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman's overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman's tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture.

Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev., concurs. If a woman is pre-menopausal and otherwise healthy, says Dr. Winch, her having an extraordinary amount of intercourse ought not to pose a problem. "I don't think women can have too much intercourse," he says, "so long as no sexually transmitted disease is introduced and there's not an inadvertent pregnancy. Sometimes you can have a lubrication problem. If you have that, there can be vaginal excoriation--vaginal scrape."

Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: "She hasn't had intercourse in three years. Just isn't interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It's a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, 'Look, you'd better buy a vibrator or you're going to lose function there.'"


http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Dude your abstinence is really quite unnatural. Not too much not too little, moderation is everything but really just saying no to sex is not what nature intended for us. The article says that whereas too much sex is no good for a man there is no such thing as too much sex for a woman (the implications of this would need a thread all of its own...and I think you know what I mean;))
 
Last edited:
Well I've met such "products" of rape and its hard to tell how they differ from other innocent children. I live in a society where women were so ashamed if they were raped that they preferred to commit suicide believing rape to have contaminated their purity or some such bs. I never saw why any woman should have to punish herself or consider herself as tainted because some man used physical force and violence against her. Similarly I am not sure how any innocent child should be held responsible or considered vile or contaminated because of something their parent has done.

Do you check your friends to ensure that none of them are a product of rape? Would it affect your relationship with them if they had the vile rapist seed and dna etc mixed in their blood?

There are support groups for people conceived of rape just as there are support groups for rape victims and its often very enlightening to listen to these human beings as they describe their feelings of exclusion by society:



http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html

What gives any person the right to decide that these people deserve to be killed before they are born?

i disagree with your argument but it could be said that if you could make sure the child will have parents at the ready to take care of that child when born, then perhaps you have some argument. until then, i don't think you do. but adoption is really a sad alternative as well, though this is usually not acknowledged. still, i think a woman has more right in what happens at conception within her own body and with her own dna, THAN you. there needs to be a line drawn somewhere and i think an abortion in the first or second trimester is fine and especially in the first. as far as rape contaminating someone, it can depending on how violent and degrading the rape was. rape is not a loving act, it is mean to be violating, otherwise rapist's would consort with a prostitute or jack off instead. there really is no excuse for rape as even rapists can find partnerships. even most rapists have significant others. maybe you are the type of person where rape would not affect you emotionally or mentally but for most people it would.

you are really evasive because you keep ignoring the fact the woman may not want to carry the rapist's child! that is sick to not understand this or ignore it. either way, it's happening in her body and if you don't like it, then blame nature. you don't have as much say so as the woman with her own dna. how dare you think otherwise? who do YOU think you are to lord over another's personal experience as one's own pregnancy?? are you sure your a woman? it's not just a matter of social shame because there will be those who will try to shame her in aborting as well. your thinking is really strange in that you think it's just what others think that is motivating a woman to have or not have an abortion which is the possible stigma of rape, nevermind she may not like or hate the rapist and not want the very personal experience of carrying it's child! and mixed with her own dna to boot which can make it even worse as she may see it as an offense against it.

this is not about the child's innocence but that the woman may not want to have the rapist's child or even raise it. some may want to give it up for adoption and that is their choice. i don't think she should be forced to endure pregnancy from rape and even when it's not rape simply because it will be unwanted. it's just not a good precedent as most people will hurt themselves or the fetus, not take care of themselves or find ways to abort it on their own anyways. there is also the psychological trauma of being forced to carry the rapist's child and feeling it growing and moving inside her. it is using her body and her nurturing to grow as well as mixed with her dna that trumps everyone else's rights over the matter and those who can't accept that then need every aspect of their life, no matter how personal and who they are dictated by an authority as well. anyone can come up with examples. there was a typical christian couple who did not allow their teen daughter to abort her pregnancy though she asked because she did not want the baby. their reasoning was they were going to make her take care of it and teach her a lesson in responsibility. she did drugs as well as alcohol and other things which a person would if they do not care about the fetus. the baby was born with many birth defects and will never have a quality life. this is typical blindness of right-wing dogma. they did no favors for that child that was born.

these pro-lifer arguments are a bit sly because it comes down to choice and you seem to be arguing that choice be taken away, otherwise why would it matter to you? after all, some will make the choice to abort and some will not.

this is what pro-lifers are not saying which basically what it boils down to. they want abortion to be illegal.


IS SEX NECESSARY?

Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

this study is flawed to some extent as it leaves out the context of the types of relatiohships. because humans are more developed, the type of relationship is important in what benefits are procured. this is why having sex just randomly with anyone is also not seen by most as healthy or fulfilling. for men, it is seen as a better alternative to masturbation but for women, they don't always get the same benefits as it depends more on the relationship. negative or toxic relationships, no matter the sex involved, will cause more harm than good. also, there is often created a chemical dependence with people who have engaged in sex and when relationships are volatile and break off, the withdrawals are far worse offsetting whatever benefits. it can be likened to a chemical addiction or dependence. it can also have the affect of impairing judgement. this up and down yoyo is not healthy. for those in mutally happy relationships, these benefits may be more pertinent but that is hardly the case of just people having sex in general no matter what tv shows or movies may hype. for humans, a genuinely loving (emotionally) and supportive relationships is more important to overall sense of health and this doesn't always have to come in the form of male/female sexual or even romantic relationships.

this is one of the reasons why masturbation is a reliever for anyone who is not in a relationship currently.
 
Last edited:
I am really fucking revolted at hearing how refusing to undergo suffering, invasion and pain is 'murder'.
if you think offering facility to an embryo is suffering, invasion and pain, wait till it becomes a teenager ....

It would be bad enough if we were talking about an actual person. But calling even a zygote a person and describing its removal as murder...is just sick.
give the zygote a couple more weeks and I am sure they will grow up to appreciate it
:eek:
 
you are really evasive because you keep ignoring the fact the woman may not want to carry the rapist's child! that is sick to not understand this or ignore it. either way, it's happening in her body and if you don't like it, then blame nature. you don't have as much say so as the woman with her own dna

There are plenty of people who abuse rape kill or just plain don't want their kids. Regardless of how they feel, I've never considered it sufficient justification to kill the children to spare the feelings of the parent.


these pro-lifer arguments are a bit sly because it comes down to choice and you seem to be arguing that choice be taken away

I think choosing to accord the right to life to the unborn child is as pro-choice as choosing to dispose it like a piece of unwanted meat. I'm pro-choice. I think women should make their own choices. However, I do not necessarily consider all their choices as equally ethical.

Since when is stripping a child of its rights by dehumanising it a right anymore than it was when it was done to women or slaves? Its hardly a novel argument to declare ownership of the piece of meat that is disposable at the owners convenience. Dehumanisation is the oldest human strategy for denying equal civil rights.
 
Last edited:
Wrong! Its one of natures strongest urges AND...


IS SEX NECESSARY?

Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

- IMPROVED SENSE OF SMELL: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.

- REDUCED RISK OF HEART DISEASE: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."

- WEIGHT LOSS, OVERALL FITNESS: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.

- REDUCED DEPRESSION: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.

- PAIN RELIEF: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

- LESS FREQUENT COLDS & FLU: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.

- BETTER BLADDER CONTROL: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.

- BETTER TEETH: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.

- A HAPPIER PROSTATE: Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

While possession of a robust appetite for sex--and the physical ability to gratify it--may not always be the cynosure of perfect health, a reluctance to engage can be a sign that something is seriously on the fritz, especially where the culprit is an infirm erection.

Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, observes that erectile dysfunction is extension of vascular system. A lethargic member may be telling you that you have diseased blood vessels elsewhere in your body. "It could be a first sign of hypertension or diabetes or increased cholesterol levels. It's a red flag that you should see your doctor." Treatment and exercise, says Dr. Eid, can have things looking up again: "Men who exercise and have a good heart and low heart rate, and who are cardio-fit, have firmer erections. There very definitely is a relationship."

But is there such a thing as too much sex?

The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you're female, probably not. If you're male? You betcha.

Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman's overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman's tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture.

Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev., concurs. If a woman is pre-menopausal and otherwise healthy, says Dr. Winch, her having an extraordinary amount of intercourse ought not to pose a problem. "I don't think women can have too much intercourse," he says, "so long as no sexually transmitted disease is introduced and there's not an inadvertent pregnancy. Sometimes you can have a lubrication problem. If you have that, there can be vaginal excoriation--vaginal scrape."

Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: "She hasn't had intercourse in three years. Just isn't interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It's a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, 'Look, you'd better buy a vibrator or you're going to lose function there.'"


http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Dude your abstinence is really quite unnatural. Not too much not too little, moderation is everything but really just saying no to sex is not what nature intended for us. The article says that whereas too much sex is no good for a man there is no such thing as too much sex for a woman (the implications of this would need a thread all of its own...and I think you know what I mean;))

:roflmao:

I thought such gems were reserved for the pseudoscience forum!
 
I am really fucking revolted at hearing how refusing to undergo suffering, invasion and pain is 'murder'.

It would be bad enough if we were talking about an actual person. But calling even a zygote a person and describing its removal as murder...is just sick.

And pretending that getting rid of a zygote is not disposing of an unwanted child is just denial. How many women would undergo abortions if the end result was not a child?
 
Sam what about ectopic preganacies? Thats a "baby" too except that it can never grow and will kill This women? What about the "children" stopped by a condom or the pill
 
There are plenty of people who abuse rape kill or just plain don't want their kids. Regardless of how they feel, I've never considered it sufficient justification to kill the children to spare the feelings of the parent.




I think choosing to accord the right to life to the unborn child is as pro-choice as choosing to dispose it like a piece of unwanted meat. I'm pro-choice. I think women should make their own choices. However, I do not necessarily consider all their choices as equally ethical.

Since when is stripping a child of its rights by dehumanising it a right anymore than it was when it was done to women or slaves? Its hardly a novel argument to declare ownership of the piece of meat that is disposable at the owners convenience. Dehumanisation is the oldest human strategy for denying equal civil rights.


there is nothing about your arguments on this thread that are practical, helpful or in any way enlightening. why? because you can't make someone be ethical especially in such a personal relationship. there is no way to force that. you can force one to be born possibly but not make the woman treat the child well or even do right by it.

you can't make someone love or care for a child or anyone else so if you are so moral as much as you preach, then what is your damn point? that you really don't care as much as making it be born. there are those who do believe as you do and think abortion is wrong and that they've done a righteous thing by giving birth to an unwanted child while treating it like shit all it's life. to them, that kid should be thankful as at least it was allowed to be born. that is your morality.

the person is either going to abort or give birth and they may keep it or adopt it out. they may even keep it as people have different motivations, some may see it as a meal ticket too. some may see it as someone to relieve their loneliness or share in their suffering. they may be putting themselves first as well, it is really blind to think that just because someone has a child or keeps it is a moral or good person than one who decides to abort. it's all depends on the person and their real motivations. if one knows they can't do right by the child physically or even emotionally, they may abort for the sake of the child not just for themselves. as well, there are those who don't even think beyond the moment and leave everything up to chance. just because someone gives birth or decides to keep a child, doesn't mean that child is necessarily better off either. would you rather a person who is going to mistreat the child give birth to it and keep it rather than abort it to save your fixation on making sure that every conception is born in the world? that is your position. earth to you: there are people who treat children like a piece of disposable meat. it doesn't have to be just in the womb. mercifully for the ones who are aborted, that treatment is shortened than those who may have to endure possible years of it.

again, what is your point, in light of the fact that even a person who has a child may not even take care of it or love it or put it first? yes, even if it's born?

you have no realistic point except to say that a person should love their child and there shouldn't be abuse or that people shouldn't rape or that wouldn't it be ideal if every child was born and they all could be taken care of and loved.

yes? and?
 
Last edited:
there is nothing about your arguments that are practical, helpful or in any way enlightening.

you can't make someone love or care for a child so if you are so moral as much as you preach, then what is your damn point?

the person is either going to abort or give birth and they may keep it or adopt it out. they may even it and not take care of it at all like it should be or treat it like shit for the most part. just because someone gives birth or decides to keep a child, doesn't mean that child is necessarily better off either. would you rather a person who is going to mistreat the child give birth to it and keep it rather than abort it to save your fixation on making sure that every conception is born in the world? that is your position. earth to you: there are people who treat children like a piece of disposable meat. it doesn't have to be just in the womb. mercifully for the ones who are aborted, that treatment is shortened than those who may have to possible years of it.

So in short, you are saying that if a child grows up in an environment where they could potentially be unloved or unsupported, the best option is to kill them?



again, what is your point, in light of the fact that even a person who has a child may not even take care of it or love it or put it first? yes, even if it's born?

you have no realistic point except to say that a person should love their child and there shouldn't be abuse or that people shouldn't rape or that wouldn't it be ideal if every child was born and they all could be taken care of and loved.

yes? and?

This is a lame argument

If we are going to accept the argument that anyone who faces personal difficulty (even if such difficulties are a consequence of their creed, socio economic class or whatever) then they should undergo mercy killing, you have a good argument to kill blacks, the poor and any other minority group that is the flavor of the day
 
So in short, you are saying that if a child grows up in an environment where they could potentially be unloved or unsupported, the best option is to kill them?





This is a lame argument

If we are going to accept the argument that anyone who faces personal difficulty (even if such difficulties are a consequence of their creed, socio economic class or whatever) then they should undergo mercy killing, you have a good argument to kill blacks, the poor and any other minority group that is the flavor of the day

this is blatant intellectual dishonesty, this is why religionists are not respected. i said that one should have a choice because it is just as inhumane or moreso to bring a child into a world where the situation is even more grave for them. from a humane perspective, if one could alleviate the potential of a child's prolonged suffering, it would be more humane. why would someone consciously choose to bring a child into a situation if they could not even feed or take care of them? they have that choice because it's their child but that doesn't mean it's a humane option either.

i still don't understand the perpetual obtuseness. you also completely missed the point that's it's not just a matter of 'potential' that the child may be unloved or unwanted or not taken care of. the person may be choosing abortion because they really don't want the child so therefore will not do right by them or cannot do right by them. it's not just a matter of chance, they really may not care at all. what is so hard to understand that some people may not want to take care of a child and that child will be the one to suffer because you cannot make one do so? so your great idea of humanity is coaxing the female that really wants to have an abortion to have the child in the hopes and chance that it will be loved or taken care of? this is your idea of a humane option? that does not make any sense to me. there are people who drink, do drugs and all manner of things with no regard to the fetus because they don't want the pregnancy. this is not enough evidence that they don't want the child? maybe they will change once it is born? how much more evidence does one need to ascertain that a person does not want to be a parent or isn't fit to be a parent? is it never obvious? is the feelings and mentality or wishes of the mother not important to ascertain that? these arguments are crazily nonsensical.

everyone should have a choice because it is THEIR child and it will be up to THEM to take care of it. some women may not want to bring their child into the world if they can't take care of it as well as they may not want it. emphasize, CHOICE! CHOICE! how many times does it have to be stated. at least i give people the CHOICE.

you may wish they did want to take care of it or love it but they may not.

get clear-headed and see the whole picture.
 
Last edited:
the position of pro-lifers, which is really just anti-abortion is that they don't care what happens to the child after it is born. their 'right to life' is much more important to them.

they see life as more the merrier as at least they have the 'chance' because even though some or a lot may die anyways from any number of afflictions that may be awaiting them whether it be starvation, disease, abuse, child trafficking and slavery, or fall through the cracks. at least they had a chance at life. a life is a game, more or less, but they don't want to say this.

the argument stands for what it is but it really is not more of a humane or ethical argument as they believe. it's just an issue of the conscious killing of an lifeform or animal. to them, killing is the worst but anything done to life while alive is not, so drawn out torture and misery is a better option than death certainly in their demented reasoning. interesting since only by being alive, can a lifeform suffer the most. that is just not as important. they just fixate on the few moments of death as the worst possible fate imaginable.

it's really no different than the hypocrisy of those who stand against the technicality of killing animals in some manner but are not as opposed to the mass and prolonged misery or immorality they suffer at factory farms.

a good example is how many people were in an uproar about pigs that were buried alive because of the foot and mouth disease but it's fine that pigs are confined in small metal spaces without sunshine for the rest of their lives while they go insane. their reasoning is at least they have some type of life when realistically in that situation, death is what would be the angel of mercy. the few moments suffered at death is irrationally overblown in proportion to the suffering they endure their entire lives regardless. this is deceptive and inaccurate reasoning.

this is the stupidity and eventual diseffectiveness of ethics when it's based on technicality rather than considering the bigger picture.
 
Last edited:
@Lightgigantic

It would be you to laugh at scientific data. I guess we should rely on your sexually frustrated. world hating, life thwarting delusions of certitude.
 
the position of pro-lifers, which is really just anti-abortion is that they don't care what happens to the child after it is born. their 'right to life' is much more important to them.

I have always always noticed this to be true. There are pro-life clinics designed to convince women who are thinking about abortion not to go through with it. They give them an ultra-sound and talk to them about the life of their baby and offer them a pram, diapers and some children's toys. Guess what they don't offer? Pre-natal care. Once the woman has decided to have the child they are finished with her and her baby.
 
Back
Top