Poll: Abortion.. A right?
- Thread starter Deep
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
No?
Self-Actualization, the only flaw to evolution.
Lets be frank, life exists without humans, yet we have been cursed with knowing what is going on, we have a far greater understanding of the bigger picture than any other life-form we have found. A majority of our population think there is something greater to life and that is a tragedy. We live for nothing other than living, unfortunately we have created a world where some prosper and some dwindle. In the animal kingdom they all live doing what they are mean to.
If our only purpose is to live, which i believe it is, is it not better live like like all other animals than how we live?
Lets be frank, life exists without humans, yet we have been cursed with knowing what is going on, we have a far greater understanding of the bigger picture than any other life-form we have found. A majority of our population think there is something greater to life and that is a tragedy. We live for nothing other than living, unfortunately we have created a world where some prosper and some dwindle. In the animal kingdom they all live doing what they are mean to.
If our only purpose is to live, which i believe it is, is it not better live like like all other animals than how we live?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
Personally, I'd go with 'GD posters' are the only flaw to evolution.
Much more accurate tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
I smoked weed for a while too when I was a student.
I don't smoke weed. Don't get me wrong, i am a conformist. Doing anything other than conforming, such as rallying troops to live like animals would actually be actively behaving against how animals behave.
I'm not a negative person, i'm quite happy to succeed in this life i have, but it is completely different to how all other life lives it.
We create so many extra boundaries to just being able to live.
I'm not a negative person, i'm quite happy to succeed in this life i have, but it is completely different to how all other life lives it.
We create so many extra boundaries to just being able to live.
This is really dumb.
If we assume Life > everything, as we do when we present it as a reason to not do something.
Then the unborn baby is not responsible for the rape, and as such is being punished for its fathers actions, something totally unacceptable. Either a woman has the right to her own body or must be forced to suffer through her rapists child's birth for the sake of its life.
He does, its called deciding whether or not to have sex in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
This.
Just...no.
If we're going for emotive arguments, as some seem to be, then we can't realistically liken an early stage embryo to something alive, it is more like a cancer or a parasite, stealing from the host while serving little useful purpose.
If it is unwanted, it has no purpose other than to grow at the expense of the host, like a tumour.
What? Not appropriate? Then stop the crap about a bunch of cells incapable of surviving without the mother being a living being with overriding autonomy over the mother
If it is unwanted, it has no purpose other than to grow at the expense of the host, like a tumour.
What? Not appropriate? Then stop the crap about a bunch of cells incapable of surviving without the mother being a living being with overriding autonomy over the mother
Granted that I didn't word it in the best of ways, but I still believe it's a valid point I made. Obviously such a system would be opt-out rather than opt-in - unless there is official, legally valid proof that the father advocated abortion from the very outset, support should still be offered, but I don't see the fairness in the mother inflicting such a large impact on the father's life when it's so totally against his will. If they were a couple trying for a baby, but split up at any stage after the woman had conceived, this wouldn't apply. If it was a random one-night stand at a house party, why should the woman have the right to shackle the man in that way?
Unfortunately you'll find the majority of the time pro-life supporters have little or no scientific background/understanding and tend not to want to learn anything that may prove them wrong.
For some weeks after conception, that foetus is no more alive or sentient than my toe. It is simply a collection of cells with the potential to become a living being later on. If it is not viable outside of the womb then it isn't alive. Just because it may look human-like and made of the same stuff as us doesn't mean it's a real person yet.
For some weeks after conception, that foetus is no more alive or sentient than my toe. It is simply a collection of cells with the potential to become a living being later on. If it is not viable outside of the womb then it isn't alive. Just because it may look human-like and made of the same stuff as us doesn't mean it's a real person yet.
there is a point at which a ball of cells becomes sentient, up to that point I will not argue with you....
however after that point you are basicly killing someone..
I don't know when that point is as I am not a doctor
a quick search tells me the latest you can have an abortion in the uk is 24 weeks, unless there are mitigating circumstances I dont see why it should not be cut in half tomorrow... i mean 24 weeks that gotta be pretty developed... thats gotta be murder...
