Why is abortion so bad?

by **The Free Eurasian Union** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:39 pm

Raeyh wrote:Preventing people from being born in the first place is ethically the same as letting them be born and then killing them.

Total non-sequitur.

by **Parhe** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:40 pm

Sardine World wrote:its a good thing really

if we make abortion mandatory for all countries except the united states and norway, we can eliminate all the competition

What competition exactly is this that exists between the two?

by **Parhe** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:41 pm

Another point I feel is that it would be better economically to have more children. An excess of humans would possible lead to a more open view towards cannibalism, opening a new industry. Also couldn't we just force the excess to do demeaning jobs? or is that slavery... Anyway I feel economically we could do a lot with extra people and bodies.

by **United States of Natan** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:42 pm

guys, it is the mother's choice. what if the woman could not support the child or the pregnancy or birth could kill her? or what if they just do not want to have a child?

by **Raeyh** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:43 pm

Divair wrote:
Raeyh wrote:Preventing people from being born in the first place is ethically the same as letting them be born and then killing them.

Prove it.

I don't understand what you mean. How would you prove or disprove that statement?

by **Seskany** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:43 pm

Parhe wrote:Another point I feel is that it would be better economically to have more children. An excess of humans would possible lead to a more open view towards cannibalism, opening a new industry. Also couldn't we just force the excess to do demeaning jobs? or is that slavery... Anyway I feel economically we could do a lot with extra people and bodies.

I've always wanted a back-scratcher made out of a human arm. You may be on to something!

by **Ifreann** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:44 pm

Raeyh wrote:Preventing people from being born in the first place is ethically the same as letting them be born and then killing them.

Do you have any idea how many people you're essentially killing by not having unprotected sex at every opportunity?

by **Inyourfaceistan** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:45 pm

United States of Natan wrote:guys, it is the mother's choice. what if the woman could not support the child or the pregnancy or birth could kill her? or what if they just do not want to have a child?

1) if it could kill her, then it's acceptable

2) if they didn't want to have a child, why the fuck would they be having sex in the first place? Now, the face being said that humans will enevitably attempt to find pleasure, regardless of the consequences, WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T THEY USE BIRTH CONTROL OMFG?!?

by **Divair** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:45 pm

Raeyh wrote:
Divair wrote:Prove it.

I don't understand what you mean. How would you prove or disprove that statement?

If it can't be proven, there's no reason to base laws on it.

by **Inyourfaceistan** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:49 pm

Raeyh wrote:
Divair wrote:Prove it.

I don't understand what you mean. How would you prove or disprove that statement?

Like this:

Definition of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

by **Raeyh** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:51 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Raeyh wrote:Preventing people from being born in the first place is ethically the same as letting them be born and then killing them.

Do you have any idea how many people you're essentially killing by not having unprotected sex at every opportunity?

It's a passive vs active thing. Getting an abortion requires conscious thought, while not having sex (or using other birth methods) is just our passive state of being.

by **Divair** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:52 pm

Inyourfaceistan wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. How would you prove or disprove that statement?

Like this:

Definition of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Better call the food companies and tell them to stop selling meat.

brb.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:54 pm

Inyourfaceistan wrote:
United States of Natan wrote:what is so bad about it?

What's so bad about murder?

It isn't bad, and it isn't murder.

by **Seskany** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:55 pm

Hey, idiots who have very obviously never taken a biology class: Amoebas, trees, onions and skin cells are alive as well. THIS IS A STUPID FUCKING THING TO BASE YOUR ARGUMENT AROUND.

by **Ifreann** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:55 pm

Raeyh wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Do you have any idea how many people you're essentially killing by not having unprotected sex at every opportunity?

It's a passive vs active thing. Getting an abortion requires conscious thought, while not having sex (or using other birth methods) is just our passive state of being.

So if someone offers to have sex with you, you're a killer if you say no. Makes sense.

by **Christian Democrats** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:56 pm

It deprives a human being of 80 years of life.

by **Czechanada** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:56 pm

I like to quote Torcularis Sepentolaris (sic):

"I don't care if you think it's human or not. If YOU were inside my body, I'd have every right to remove you. If the entire Swedish government is in my body, well, they can get right on the fuck out. Fetuses included."

by **Divair** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:56 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:It deprives a fetus of potentially having the potential of having 80 years of life.

Fix'd.

by **Ifreann** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:58 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:It deprives a human being of 80 years of life.

So does not having sex, no?

by **Czechanada** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:58 pm

Divair wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:It deprives a fetus of potentially having the potential of having 80 years of life of being oppressed by governments, corporations, and religions.

Fix'd.

Extra fix'd.

by **Iormund** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:59 pm

Divair wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. How would you prove or disprove that statement?

If it can't be proven, there's no reason to base laws on it.

If we were to use your reasoning then we should ban all the laws alltogether...
You can't prove an action is inherently good nor bad. And actually you can prove that slavery is more profitable than certain economic models we have in use nowadays and that killing people is more cost effective than having them in jail for lifetime.

by **Raeyh** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:59 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
It's a passive vs active thing. Getting an abortion requires conscious thought, while not having sex (or using other birth methods) is just our passive state of being.

So if someone offers to have sex with you, you're a killer if you say no. Makes sense.

You lost me. Let me explain in other terms. In order to have potential life, you need a fertilized egg. If you never get around to fertilizing eggs, then there can be no life. Obviously, this isn't that bad, though, since it's just being lazy. Unless you are Christian and consider sloth to be a major sin, but that's another issue.

Abortion, on the other hand, already has a fertilized egg and destroys it. This prevents the life from ever being born.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:59 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:It deprives a human being of 80 years of life.

What about a spontaneous miscarriage?

by **Arkiasis** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Pro-life individuals believe that abortion is a murder of an unborn individual. And stress their point of view that life begins at conception. As well as they also believe that the unborn baby has the right to life. Or at least that's what I've noticed from pro-lifers, then there's a whole other religious argument that the baby is god's creation and that abortion is the murder to God's amazing divine creation or something.

by **Divair** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Iormund wrote:If we were to use your reasoning then we should ban all the laws alltogether...
You can't prove an action is inherently good nor bad. And actually you can prove that slavery is more profitable than certain economic models we have in use nowadays

Yet can we prove it takes away the rights of human beings.

Iormund wrote: and that killing people is more cost effective than having them in jail for lifetime.

It actually isn't, but that's a debate more suited towards a death penalty legality thread.