Limelight Forums

(May 15, 2020, 10:20 PM)Nudelsalat im Panzer Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:11 PM)Tom* Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:09 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ]I fail to see how it can be justified? It is medically possible to extract an embryo/foetus and implant it into a surrogate if pregnancy risks the mother's life.

Imagine bringing a Baby into the world to Drug addicted parents living in the slums who are 15?

Is it the baby's fault???

No, but unfortunately they are placed in that situation

(May 15, 2020, 10:23 PM)Tom* Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:20 PM)Nudelsalat im Panzer Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:11 PM)Tom* Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine bringing a Baby into the world to Drug addicted parents living in the slums who are 15?

Is it the baby's fault???

No, but unfortunately they are placed in that situation

So instead of giving this human a chance to live his life/get out of this miserable situation, you decide to kill it and destroy any chance for a normal life. ok

(May 15, 2020, 10:26 PM)Nudelsalat im Panzer Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:23 PM)Tom* Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:20 PM)Nudelsalat im Panzer Wrote: [ -> ]Is it the baby's fault???

No, but unfortunately they are placed in that situation

So instead of giving this human a chance to live his life/get out of this miserable situation, you decide to kill it and destroy any chance for a normal life. ok

Okay okay, I disagree but, What if 2 cousins have a cheeky shag, that baby will most likely be retarded or deformed whatcha do then?

(May 15, 2020, 10:28 PM)Tom* Wrote: [ -> ]Okay okay, I disagree but, What if 2 cousins have a cheeky shag, that baby will most likely be retarded or deformed whatcha do then?

That's called eugenics. Nice job saying all those who are disabled should have been aborted. We don't euthanize people for being disabled, so why would you kill them in the womb? How do they lose their personhood by being disabled?

(May 15, 2020, 10:31 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 15, 2020, 10:28 PM)Tom* Wrote: [ -> ]Okay okay, I disagree but, What if 2 cousins have a cheeky shag, that baby will most likely be retarded or deformed whatcha do then?

That's called eugenics. Nice job saying all those who are disabled should have been aborted. We don't euthanize people for being disabled, so why would you kill them in the womb? How do they lose their personhood by being disabled?

I didn't say they should I simply put forward the scenario

Although i believe abortion is murder, i also agree with Bill Nye and tom

The basic concept is this: if what's being aborted is nothing more than tissue, then abortion should be unrestricted as it's not amoral - it's like a tonsillectomy. But if the thing being aborted is a human being with the same human rights you and I posses, then abortion cannot be tolerated because we do not tolerate the legal killing of innocent human beings. 

So here's the argument:
1. It's generally wrong to directly kill innocent human beings 
2. The unborn are innocent human beings
3. Abortion directly kills the unborn
4. It's therefore wrong to kill the unborn

Let's look into each premise:

1. It's generally wrong to directly kill innocent human beings 

This is obvious, if you disagree let me know because I've always wanted a prison pen pal. Just as it's illegal to kill a 2 year old because we don't want to take care of them, it should be illegal to kill a younger child, an unborn child, for that same reason if that child is a human being like you and I. Onto premise 2:

2. The unborn are innocent human beings
How do we know this? First the unborn are growing so they must be alive, if they weren't alive you wouldn't need to abort them. Second, the unborn are human because they have human DNA and human parents. Finally, unlike sperm or egg or cancer cells, the unborn are complete organisms capable of growing and developing into an adult - unless they are killed by someone or something before that time. The very words "embryo" and "foetus" can only be defined as the stages of development in the life of a human being. 

But some of you will say "well they're not fully human, they're not a person" but my question to you would be, well what is a person? You have to know what a person is before you can say the unborn are not people. 

For example, some will say "well, the unborn are not persons because they cannot feel pain". The problem is there are many born, disabled humans who cannot feel pain but they're still persons. More importantly, any animal that could feel pain under this criteria would be a person. 

The other common definition of a person is viability, or being able to survive outside of the uterus. But once again that's a bad criteria for personhood, lots of animals like squirrels and snakes can survive outside of the uterus - but they're not persons. Plus, how does the fact that the unborn are very helpless prove they aren't persons. Human beings aren't viable on mars, but that wouldn't give Martians the right to abduct us and put us on Mars where we will asphyxiate to death. Likewise, the fact that the unborn can't survive outside of the uterus doesn't give us the right to remove them from the place where they can survive and kill them. 

To summarise, our human rights don't come from what we can do, they come from what we are and the best way to ground our human rights is to pick what's equal about all of us - which is our human nature. This is the most equal and inclusive definition of human value.

3. Abortion directly kills the unborn
People say abortion isn't really killing because the foetus has no right to use the woman's body without her consent, abortion just removes the foetus who then dies because he or she cannot survive outside of the uterus and they're removing them from a place they have no right to be. But that's like saying putting your 1 year old outside in a blizzard doesn't kill him, it just removes him from a place he has no right to be (he doesn't pay rent) and it put him in a place he can't survive - which is absurd. Even the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade said there is no absolute right to do whatever you want with your body.

The bottom line is that if you engage in an activity that is ordered towards creating helpless children (sex), then you have an obligation to provide for those children that you create. If you are a man, then you an obligation to provide child support - and not just money but social support - even if you don't want to, because you have a responsibility towards the children you created, and the woman who you've impregnated. 

So if we agree that men have these responsibilities in virtue of what they've freely chosen to do, then to be equal between men and women we have to say women also have responsibilities - that they have responsibility to care for the child that, in almost every case, they're responsible for creating. Women certainly have a right to control their bodies, but nobody has a right to use their body to hurt another innocent body outside or inside of them. 

What is the uterus for, if not for sustaining the life of an unborn child. Don't the children we create, born or unborn, have a right to basic necessities they need to live: like food, water or shelter. Pregnancy provides this, and unborn children have a right to this kind of care when we create them. 

Finally, abortion is not a passive removal of life support, it's the active killing of a child via dismemberment. In the first trimester when medical abortion is not used, the human foetus is torn apart by a powerful vacuum or is killed while passing through the vacuum tube. In the secon trimester, the foetus is removed piece-by-piece in a procedure called dilation & evacuation - a long curved mayo scissors are used to decapitate and dismember the fetus. 

So in conclusion, the reason that I am pro-life is because I believe that every human being - no matter their race, their age, their sex, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their functional abilities - has equal basic rights. Principle among these would be the right to live, and we need laws in our society to protect our rights.

Martin Luther King, Jr was asked "don't you think you should change racists' hearts before you change the law" and he said "it may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also." 

So I believe all human beings should be protected under the law, and in order to accomplish that goal we have to figure out who is a human being. And I believe I have shown that the unborn are human beings that don't differ from us in any relevant way. 

Just as it is wrong to say that women should not have rights because they are biologically different than, or socially dependant on men (argued in the 19th century), it is equally wrong to say unborn human beings should not have basic rights because they are biologically different than, or physical dependant upon born people.

Pro-choicers have to show the unborn are not human beings worthy of these basic rights, the basic right to be protected from dismemberment because you're unwanted. Of course, in my view, all human being have a right to live and we should respect that and find other non-violent solutions to difficult life problems.

Ech.. its this discussion again

it is murder. and its not allowed in alot of religions

To supplement my earlier reply, here's a video by Dr. Anthony Levatino, an OB-GYN who performed over 1200 abortions before becoming pro-life. He explains the procedures done:

It is murder, however in my opinion it can be justified based on the circumstances.

are condoms murder too then?

(May 16, 2020, 07:42 AM)Project Wrote: [ -> ]are condoms murder too then?

bro u got fucking point holy shit...

(May 16, 2020, 07:42 AM)Project Wrote: [ -> ]are condoms murder too then?

Well no, all you’re doing by using a condom is stopping the sperm fertilising the egg. You’re not killing a growing human, you’re just stopping one from forming.