-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter t_BuckeyeScott
- Start date
BIATCHabutuka
out of chaos comes playoffs
But what about the woman's right to convenience? It has to be a hassle being pregnant like that.
Shouldn't that be more important than some clump of cells?
I mean come on, you don't have a problem when they trim their fingernails or cut their hair do you. . . . .
Upvote
0
BIATCHabutuka
out of chaos comes playoffs
I have never had hamsters.
I do know something about keeping fish though.
If fish are kept too close, they will kill. It isn't the fishes fault, it the tank designer's fault in that case.
I'd imagine it is the same way with hamsters in a cage, gerbils in a President's rectum, or humans in society.
Upvote
0
I assume you also take this position when someone shoots and kills a guy who broke into his house. Why should the right to protect your property be sufficient to take a life, after all? I'm totally with you.
I don't expect any definitions and research though. I'm not foolishly optimistic enough that you'd ever attempt to support your remarks.
Upvote
0
BIATCHabutuka
out of chaos comes playoffs
Maybe, maybe not.
It does show that they can use force to take my right of choice away from me.
It also shows that some people only believe in choice when they agree with them, the rest of the time they like choosing for others.
That is my definition of a tyrant. Some call them hypocrites, I like tyrant. You can hang tyrants, you can only ridicule hypocrites.
Upvote
0
Smart has nothing to do with the ability to make choices. People make stupid choices all the time.
Upvote
0
Taos = fail
martinss01
blissfully stupid
*sigh* i feel like i have answered that question eight times now. heres the deal, you can either answer the following question or not. completely your call. but if you don't answer im done with this conversation as I will have to assume you are completely unwilling to partake in a intelligent conversation in which both sides rationally consider the opinions of others before utterly rejecting them as infantile and moronic.
the question: "is it your opinion that when a person(s) makes a conscious decision to partake in an action that may lead to pregnancy. should pregnancy occur, the person(s) (ie mother and or father) directly involved in creating said child are the only ones who could possibly have any negative consequences to said action?" <-- that was the question by the way....
Upvote
0
@martinss01 - in reading and researching my response on the Planned Parenthood thread, I read:
FWIW - I agree with your points above completely, and I think if that 50 million number is to be credited, there is a staggering level of unintended consequences which any rational person, engaged in serious debate, must acknowledge and address. Of course a lot of those aborted lives may have enjoyed something approaching a normal life as you, I, or Mili might define that. I can't say what that percentage is. But, it seems to me obvious that there would be a large population which would not enjoy any such life. I would anticipate an increase in homelessness, crime, drug use, more strain on the adoption system, a booming orphanage system, among other things. Admittedly, this is premised on my opinion that a large population of unwanted children will be raised not much unlike children reared in poverty. To say that any individual citizen would not be affected (even forgoing the social program funding issues left unaddressed by so many on the pro-life side who also happen to be conservative when it comes to those programs) by the result of banning abortions strikes me as wholly absurd, considering. I too am curious as to Mili, or like-minded persons response(s).
LINK
FWIW - I agree with your points above completely, and I think if that 50 million number is to be credited, there is a staggering level of unintended consequences which any rational person, engaged in serious debate, must acknowledge and address. Of course a lot of those aborted lives may have enjoyed something approaching a normal life as you, I, or Mili might define that. I can't say what that percentage is. But, it seems to me obvious that there would be a large population which would not enjoy any such life. I would anticipate an increase in homelessness, crime, drug use, more strain on the adoption system, a booming orphanage system, among other things. Admittedly, this is premised on my opinion that a large population of unwanted children will be raised not much unlike children reared in poverty. To say that any individual citizen would not be affected (even forgoing the social program funding issues left unaddressed by so many on the pro-life side who also happen to be conservative when it comes to those programs) by the result of banning abortions strikes me as wholly absurd, considering. I too am curious as to Mili, or like-minded persons response(s).
Upvote
0
I have always been very conflicted on this issue personally…some think I don’t care enough about it, but in reality, I am very ambivalent. From purely biological and ecological perspectives, population control is a good thing. From an evolutionary perspective, survival of the strongest is a good thing. But then, what does “strongest” really mean? Richard Dawkins once posited that every baby with trisomy should be aborted…which immediately led to thousands of parents on twitter posting pictures of their precious Down’s children holding a Special Olympics medal, or hugging a dog, or working at a job, or holding a sibling, with a caption along the lines of “According to Richard Dawkins, I should never have been born”. Those families, obviously, are “stronger” for having had those children, despite the evolutionary concept not directly matching. On the other hand, there are those parents that want nothing to do with a “damaged” baby, so they are shoved in a home somewhere and are generally never seen or loved. This can be extended to what martins is talking about, the more general concept of unwanted children, and the weakening of familial and societal structure that they produce. That particular example of Dawkins, and the backlash that ensued, shows the necessary complication that arises when one is talking about a human child, as opposed to a goat or a chicken or a salamander. Many people believe humans have a soul, and if one believes that, then the premature termination of a life becomes a difficult question to address, especially considering no one quite knows when the soul develops, nor can we establish a consensus of when “life” begins. I should also say that this is not merely a question of science saying one thing and religion saying another. Rather, there are so many interwoven complexities to the issue that consensus is likely impossible. Ask people “Do you think we should significantly reduce the number of unwanted childbirths in this country?” and I imagine you will almost get 100% yes. But then ask “So should we allow late-term abortions and post-birth termination up to one week after birth?” and I imagine the percentage of support would be very small, though it is an example (albeit a rather extreme one) of a way to effectively accomplish the first question, were the moral concept of “life” not really an issue. I find myself deploring the idea of an abortion of an otherwise viable baby (except in very extreme cases), but I also am tired of the breeders and child collectors whose only claim to fame is cranking out multiple babies with multiple partners. Is an abortion “never being born” or “never having a chance”? Or is it both? Which weighs more heavily? I have a hard time answering many of these questions definitively.
Upvote
0