Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 10:58

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 24.09.2010 at 10:30
Babies don't choose to be born either.

Exactly. If I'd had a choice, I'd rather have not been born. Does that then mean my mother was immoral for having me?

Written by Bad English on 24.09.2010 at 12:01
Same here, haveing a baby is biggest sin in world, generaly it means after 18 no metter what even you die live your own ,,,,

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 12:47

Written by Bad English on 24.09.2010 at 12:01
Same here, haveing a baby is biggest sin in world, generaly it means after 18 no metter what even you die live your own ,,,,

I wouldn't say having a baby is a "sin", but there definitely are children/people who would have been better off being aborted than brought into the world. And plenty of children/people that would rather have not been born.

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 24.09.2010 at 10:30

Babies don't choose to be born either.

Written by Deus Ex Machina on 23.09.2010 at 05:03

The fetus soup story. It was exposed as a hoax a long time ago, was it not?

As far as the topic of abortion goes...there are situations where it's completely necessary and I'd be a fool to be against it. I have zero desire to discuss anything with people who are against it, though. They can go find someone else to preach to. They can't decide someones life for them.
There are people I know who shouldn't have had kids at all, but they have and now not only are they still dumbasses, they're dumbasses responsible for their kids lives when they can't even sort themselves out. It's pretty disgusting to watch.

What I do like is when the prolifers bring up the the (and I've seriously seen people ask this) "How would you feel if your mother aborted you?" It's usually followed by a lot of !!!'s and ? ? ? ?'s so It's more like "How would you feel if you mother aborted you!!!!?????

That has got to be the dumbest question ever. How would I FEEL? Ugh, I wouldn't...you know...exist.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 21:04

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 24.09.2010 at 10:30

Babies don't choose to be born either.

Birth is natural. Death via miscarriage is also natural. Abortion is not.

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 10:58

Exactly. If I'd had a choice, I'd rather have not been born. Does that then mean my mother was immoral for having me?

Saying abortion is wrong because "the child doesn't have a choice" is a stupid arguement. Children don't choose to be born either, so it works both ways. Abortion should always be an option regardless of the situation.

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:08

What is not natural about one man killing another?

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 21:15

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:08

What is not natural about one man killing another?

Everything. Because the endurance of vileness in this world does not make it sublime.

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:22

I am not calling it sublime. I think noone is. But its an imperfect world that sometimes calls for imperfect solutions. Abortion would not exist of the would was such a happy an magnificant place all the time. But its not.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 21:11
Would you rather have been aborted or not conceived in the first place? Yes, I know the answer to that already.

I never said abortion was wrong. I simply loathe the stupid "it's the woman's body" argument in favor of abortion, because it is in fact not the woman's body which is being terminated. "Life sucks" is actually a much better argument.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 21:04

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 24.09.2010 at 10:30

Babies don't choose to be born either.

Birth is natural. Death via miscarriage is also natural. Abortion is not.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 21:30

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:22

I am not calling it sublime. I think noone is. But its an imperfect world that sometimes calls for imperfect solutions. Abortion would not exist of the would was such a happy an magnificant place all the time. But its not.

It'a an awful world indeed. But that in and of itself is no excuse for awful deeds. Whether the deed is aborting a child or giving birth to it. And I am not sure which option is worse, but the birth of a child is at least the natural course of events.

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 21:30

"Its the woman's body" is not a stupid arguement in favour of abortion. Seeing as the woman is going to have to carry the child inside her for around 9 months, and have to endure the agony of childbirth, I would say its far from a "stupid" arguement. The way you're talking, its as if the woman doesnt have to endure anything to give birth. Reality check, please! "Life sucks" actually is a very good arguement for abortion as well. lol

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 24.09.2010 at 21:45

Many things aren't natural solutions. Should we do away with all technology and medicine?

Quote:

Also, awful deeds are relative. Good and evil are merely social constructs, and on a more detailed level, personal preferences. Thus, they have no objective authority.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 22:12
It is a stupid argument, because women don't usually get pregnant from holy spirit. They get pregnant because they do something to get pregnant. They choose to have a child or choose to risk having one. And they shouldn't, unless they are willing to accept the concequences. Rape is another matter.

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:48

And as the user above me stated. If we are to keep ourselves to natural course of events, we should stop everything

Quote:

Especially in the way of healthcare, seeing as that is, by fact, artificially lengthening your "intended" lifespan.

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 22:30

It is not a stupid arguement. I gave very detailed reasoning in previous posts in this thread why I think in the vast majority of situations, abortion should always be the woman's choice. Again, you're looking at things in a very narrow minded, black and white way. The issues involved are far too complex to be reduced to the simplistic anti-abortion arguements you are offering. Look at my other posts in this thread to see my arguements against the view you've just given.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 22:50
I've never offered a single argument against abortion. This is really not going to work if you're going to make stuff up. I said, that elective abortion is not fulfilling any natural need. That is not an argument in favour or against abortion, it is a simple truth.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 22:33

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:48

And as the user above me stated. If we are to keep ourselves to natural course of events, we should stop everything

That. Just. Doesn't. Make. Sense. At....All...

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 22:53

On the contrary, elective abortion is very much fulfilling a natural need. Your assertion otherwise, is frankly ridiculous. How am I making stuff up? You have offered nothing but very simplistic, black and white reasons for why women should have to give birth unless they've been raped. That isnt me making stuff up, thats me painting it as it is.

Written by Ellrohir on 24.09.2010 at 22:59

why? if it is "natural" that children are birth and anything else is not, then why it should be "natural" to cure cancer by chemical-based pharmaceuticals or performing any surgery? "naturally" you become ill...whole human medicine (excluding some basic herbalism maybe) is artificial

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 23:02
Elective abortion - A voluntary interruption of pregnancy before fetal viability, which is performed voluntarily at the request of the mother for reasons unrelated to concerns for maternal or fetal health or welfare. In other words: it's an inconvenience, freaking kill it!

Which natural need would that be? The need to catch the latest episode of Desperate Housewives without being disturbed?

Quote:
You're making up arguments that I haven't made. I have taken no position against or for abortion, but since you are for it, you feel the need to force me into the opposite position. I cannot even begin to imagine why.

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 23:09

Once again, a totally black and white view that totally ignores the bigger picture, and huge range of issues/consequences/outcomes of carrying an unplanned (and sometimes unwanted) pregnancy full term. As someone else previously stated, your arguement is a purely emotional one, without taking any of the potential negative realities of carrying the preganancy into consideration whatsoever.

Quote:

You have stated (correct me if Im wrong) that a woman should have to carry a pregnancy full term and give birth unless she's been raped. Or you at least think thats what she should do. If that is the case, I fail to see how you can say you are not against elective abortions.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 23:28
Why don't you stop talking about what you think my views are and what you think they are like. I don't care. At all. Whatever the reasons for elective abortion, it isn't going to fulfill any natural needs of the child, it will eliminate them along with it.

Quote:
I only said that women should take responsibilty for their own actions, to put it simply. If they have an abortion because they think the child's life would suck, then I don't mind. But that doesn't mean they are fulfilling any natural needs.

Written by Angelic Storm on 24.09.2010 at 23:36

How is it not? There are many children, as I stated before who would be better off not being born, and would wish not to be if they had a choice. So, for some children at least, being brought into the world is hardly fulfilling their "natural needs" either.

Quote:

Why is it only women who have to take responsibility? Classic male stance on the issue. It takes two to make a baby you know.

Quote:

Other posters have given perfect examples of other things that are not natural, that man will happily use to benefit himself. Elective abortion is NO different.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 23:51
A mother may or may not be able to fulfill a child's natural needs, but giving birth at least doesn't eliminate the one who has those needs, even though simply giving birth obviously isn't fulfilling all the child's needs. I too wish that I was never born sometimes, but there is certainly no natural need for me to not exist. If all my natural needs were perfectly fulfilled, I wouldn't wish it. But here's the key point: killing a child is never fulfilling any of his/her natural needs. Ever.

Quote:
I never said...oh for the love of coffee...you know very well what I said, don't you? "Women have to take responsibilty for their actions" not: "Women have to take responsobity for their actions and the father's."

Quote:
Rubbish. Taking medicine is in harmony with the patience's natural need to stay alive. Aborting a baby is not in harmony with ANY of the baby's natural needs or the mother's.

Written by Angelic Storm on 25.09.2010 at 00:03

It is not only down to whether a mother can fulfill a child's needs, although it does play a big part. There are many other things that can come into play when talking about how much (or whether or not) the child will suffer in it's life. Sure, if we lived in a wonderful paradise of a world, where everyone lived happily and in harmony, then I would agree with you. Seeing as that is not the case, I prefer to look at the big picture, rather than taking a narrow minded view of the situation. With that being the case, I must totally disagree with your last point.

Quote:

Like I said, Ive already gone into great detail in previous posts about why I dont think its as simple as "women have to take responsibility for their actions" when debating whether or not a woman is entitled to abort or not. There are many factors that have to be considered, not just that. Though in a nutshell, just because Im all for elective abortions, doesn't mean I agree with irresponsible sex. Look at my previous posts if you want a more detailed version of that opinion.

Quote:
Rubbish. Taking medicine is in harmony with the patience's natural need to stay alive. Aborting a baby is not in harmony with ANY of the baby's natural needs or the mother's.

Quote:

Complete claptrap.

Written by [user id=105293] on 25.09.2010 at 00:20
Suffering or no suffering, there is no natural need for anyone to die. Don't confuse natural processes with natural needs. You thinking some people would be better off having never been born doesn't change anything about their natural needs.

Quote:
Whatever the case for elective abortion, "It's my body" is not an argument.

Quote:
If you don't want to discuss, why reply in the first place?

As far as I am concerned, you've just ended the discussion without any grace. Fine, I am sleepy anyway.