Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
how bout dat baby slaughterin'?
proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂ ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?
Offline
you can just have another baby some other time, i support abortion
Offline
if you get raped you shouldn't need a constant reminder of that for 9 months
Offline
okay so yeah i think it should be allowed up to a... certain point. i don't know what point though. i don't pay that much attention to debates because the pro-life thing is just sensationalism.
i don't think a child is a decent like, "punishment" for having sex; it effects more than just someone's personal life, because ur literally bringing in a new person to existence. they shouldn't get punished for their parent's mistakes.
as for rape, abortion should absolutely be allowed -- it isn't a nine month reminder, it's an eighteen-plus year reminder.
i also think that men should have some sort of say in it too; women occasionally try to "trap" men into a relationship or child support etc by means of getting pregnant y'kno so
ye
also like, assume ppl are going to get abortions no matter what. i'd much rather women have safe environments to do it in than going to see a back-alley doctor and possibly dying in the process.
proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂ ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?
Offline
you can just have another baby some other time, i support abortion
Wait are you pro-abortion or pro-choice
aka towwl
Offline
Bimps wrote:you can just have another baby some other time, i support abortion
Wait are you pro-abortion or pro-choice
pro-choice
okay so yeah i think it should be allowed up to a... certain point. i don't know what point though. i don't pay that much attention to debates because the pro-life thing is just sensationalism.
i don't think a child is a decent like, "punishment" for having sex; it effects more than just someone's personal life, because ur literally bringing in a new person to existence. they shouldn't get punished for their parent's mistakes.
as for rape, abortion should absolutely be allowed -- it isn't a nine month reminder, it's an eighteen-plus year reminder.i also think that men should have some sort of say in it too; women occasionally try to "trap" men into a relationship or child support etc by means of getting pregnant y'kno so
yealso like, assume ppl are going to get abortions no matter what. i'd much rather women have safe environments to do it in than going to see a back-alley doctor and possibly dying in the process.
the is literally no proof that the baby is gonna do anything in life, it isnt anything yet. it can easily be another baby.
Offline
Abortion should be allowed to everyone, regardless of what.
What if the mother don't want to carry a baby for 9 months? And in the fetus, the baby can barely feel pain anyway.
This is a false statement.
Offline
I think this extends to why we think it's bad for someone to die. Is it because of their future potential that's lost? (Ranging from no more happy strolls down the beach to not being a power stock broker/running the world and whatnot)
Then we apply that to this. Do we not want abortion because it prevents the future potential? I've never had a kid, so I'm not particularly educated in the matter, but no experiences are shared with anyone before they've been born... so the whole "xth trimester" seems off.
Basically, I'm trying to see beyond "no, it's not ethical" because as soon as you say "It's just not right" you're closing off arguments. WHY is it not ethical?
how bout dat baby slaughterin'?
dem rules said no "topic, discuss" so uhm... you did post about it later, but... yeah...
if you get raped you shouldn't need a constant reminder of that for 9 months
Agreeing wholeheartedly. Does someone actually disagree with that?
i don't think a child is a decent like, "punishment" for having sex; it effects more than just someone's personal life, because ur literally bringing in a new person to existence. they shouldn't get punished for their parent's mistakes.
I formulated some shape of an idea about that. My limited knowledge of government penalties suggested a fine of sorts. That way, you're not stuck with ruining some kid's life (well, you really could put up for adoption though)... instead, you pay for your mistake literally. Although some probably would take the fines in stride, idk.
Ultimately: I think if you need an abortion for other than something reasonably out of your control (rape) you made your own mistake. Whether or not you should be reprimanded or whatnot, I'm not really sure. I could see it both ways: if you screwed up while it's illegal, that's your bad choosing. The whole "every baby is a life" needs to be further explained for me.
Offline
you arent really ruining some kids life, like i said they have no life yet
Offline
Offline
jesus christ why did one of the first debates have to be depressing what's wrong with u zoey
simple: mothers should have full control over whether or not to have a baby. maybe they're just not ready for it yet.
Offline
Well, I think every woman should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her body. I prefer to see a fetus abandoned in a trash can than a kid abandoned in the streets.
Offline
Offline
Definitely should be allowed up to a certain point
by certain point i mean age of the fetus
Maverick: Started up on a 6, when he pulled from the clouds, and then I moved in above him.
Charlie: Well, if you were directly above him, how could you see him?
Maverick: Because I was inverted.
Offline
I think the majority of liberals would be pro-choice, but I tend to take a "conservative" approach to abortion. This is deep stuff we're dealing with, and it can have many unintended repercussions. I take the humanitarian approach (not to be confused with popular yet asinine reasons such as "it's a cute, innocent baby", "VICIOUS MURDER THO", "the baby could cure cancer!", etc.): my opinion is that we should value human life, because the alternative -- seeing it as disposable -- is not only unethical but also a very slippery slope. For example:
If a zygote is disposable, why isn't an embryo? Because it's a little bit bigger, and has developed more organs? What does that have to do with ethics?
If an embryo is disposable, why isn't a fetus? Because they can feel pain? So what; I'm sure we can find a way to terminate a fetus painlessly.
If a fetus is disposable, why isn't a baby? Because it's outside of the womb? What difference does that make?
I know nobody actually thinks like this but if for some twisted reason you wanted to kill a child, it could be argued that, since abortion is ethical, all murder is ethical. After all, what is the difference? All the answers you can provide are arbitrary if I can do it painlessly.
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
Abort is above you.
Calm down and get dank.
ABORTION SHOULD BE BANNED BECAUSE IT'S JUST CRUELTY TO HUMAN NATURE!!!!!
Offline
^Such is why I figure a fine of some sort concurrently. Although that doesn't really help with the poor folk hm.
@Tako: That assumes a value on human life. I'm not sure where we start that value. You're right, you do take a different view, what with people talking about certain stages in the embryo/fetus. I don't see the deterrent as pain. I see it as why do we value human life, and does that condition apply to the unborn folk?
Offline
What about fetus donations? There's always a woman wanting to have a baby from herself but can't.
This is a false statement.
Offline
I don't see anything wrong with abortion but I think after a couple months (when you've known your pregnant) you shouldn't be allowed so late term. I mean, by then you should have decided whether you're having the baby or not. (If you haven't, I don't really know what to say)
Yes, there is always the argument of "What if the baby could cure cancer!" Well, you'd have to wait a couple decades or so before that happens. The question I'd rather ask is, "What if a kid already born could cure cancer but isn't receiving a good enough education to do so?" I think people should look to helping those that are already alive rather than those who will have to wait for so many years before they can do anything, well, significant. (That's not to say I support infanticide. Prebirth vs postbirth is like two different worlds, the former where only the foetus and the mother exist, and the latter where everyone else exists. There are so many more options after birth, but you can't exactly adopt a foetus, and surrogacy with someone who doesn't want to even give birth to the child they'll have doesn't seem as if it would work.)
Women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies. If someone simply doesn't want to have a child, (sure maybe they should have used contraception in the first place) then I'd say yes to an early term abortion, but lame term seems a bit... irrational? By such a long time I think it's a bit late to say you want out. In the end I suppose my opinion doesn't really matter to someone who's going to have an abortion.
abortion should only be allowed after the baby is 24 months
ZOEY DOESNT ACCEPT ANYTHING
Offline
When you get down to it, sure. People would still try abortions.
My question is the assumption that "a life is a life". I try to draw connections to the emotional losses of parents at the loss of a child, or perhaps "society loses something" otherwise I can't explain why we need to preserve this "life."
Where do we get the right to live? Strictly speaking, it's no one's loss to have the abortion. What "could have happened" has nothing to do with it; we cannot answer that question anyway.
BUT, if we draw correlations, do our major physicists/scientists/doctors come from families that wanted abortions? hmm
Offline
hi. I saw something on facebook, wanted to make a thread, remembered we had a thread, and it turns out we segue right into what I wanted to ask about. anyone still here?
A bad life is better than no life.
with the right to life taking precedence over the right to happiness
Interesting. So then, living, in any context, is better than death? If we don't seek some form of happiness or net gain in life, can't we justify the attempt to break even, a nice zero? That is, is a miserable existence truly better than not existing? By all aspects (taken at face value, I suppose) your miserable existence is negative. Not existing allows you to reach a zero.
Perhaps you're saying that the "bad life" is actually not bad? You might be saying that "bad lives" become "good lives" at some point. Then your premise of a bad life seems a bit misleading, but right now I'm putting words in your mouth.
Offline
[ Started around 1732226202.4604 - Generated in 0.160 seconds, 13 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.64 MiB (Peak: 1.88 MiB) ]