{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Bearbeitet von New Years HK:
12/11/2016 8:16:40 PM
25
Why anyone is pro-life is beyond me
Until a person is not only conscious (which its not in the womb), but legitimately self-aware, it is no more human than an ape, or even a goddamn fly, is. For the purpose of my little rant, allow me to define a couple things. I'll define conscious as being able to react to outside stimuli and being "awake", as that's the best word o can think of for this situation. I'll define self-aware as being aware of its own existence and able to make rational decisions based upon its environment instead of just reacting to stimuli with inbuilt instincts. Anyways, ever notice how really small animals with really small brains tend to act more based upon external stimuli than making rational decisions? Sure, they're conscious, but they're not self-aware due to their lack of mental capacity. Ever notice how babies are the same way? Granted, I'm not saying killing any child under 4 years old (about when their mental capacity allows them to become truly self aware, albeit on a rudimentary level) should be okay, but why it's treated as more heinous than murdering an actual self-aware being is beyond me. So I could care less how far the woman is into her pregnancy and decides to get an abortion. The "person" that she's killing is no more intelligent than a goddamn fly for fuсk's sake. Oh, and for those of you who are going to have the argument "Well, it will eventually grow up", I don't care. I care what it is at that very moment. Also, allow me to make another point. If the damn thing is dependent upon you in every sense of the word, you have every right to do what you want with it. And for those of you saying that "What if the guy wants it?" I have an answer. First of all, it's her body, so refer to what I mentioned before. Secondly, is he gonna have to deal with the puking, the nausea, the inability to get comfortable or sleep on your stomach for 9 agonizing months then have to be the one to endure the pain of childbirth? Is he gonna have to be the one to deal with any complications that arise, whether they're major or just merely making her have to piss more often? No. So why the hell should what he wants take precedence over what she wants?
Edit: I love how there are almost as many people complaining about the lack of paragraphs as actually wanting to discuss this.
English
#Offtopic
-
Iam anti-wall of text and would condone anorting you for it.
-
4 AntwortenI'm only asking questions here, so don't anybody jump on me with hair-trigger straw men. [quote]Until a person is not only conscious (which its not in the womb), but legitimately self-aware, it is no more human than an ape, or even a goddamn fly, is. For the purpose of my little rant, allow me to define a couple things. I'll define conscious as being able to react to outside stimuli and being "awake", as that's the best word o can think of for this situation. I'll define self-aware as being aware of its own existence and able to make rational decisions based upon its environment instead of just reacting to stimuli with inbuilt instincts.[/quote] Can I go pull the plug on a bunch of comatose patients in the hospital, then, or even just the unconscious patients? They can't react to outside stimuli. They aren't "awake." They aren't aware of their own existence, and they can't make rational decisions. The argument shouldn't be over consciousness. It should be [i]strictly[/i] over humanity. When are we dealing with a human being? If we can determine humanity, then the whole debate is settled. [quote]So I could care less how far the woman is into her pregnancy and decides to get an abortion. The "person" that she's killing is no more intelligent than a goddamn fly for fuсk's sake. Oh, and for those of you who are going to have the argument "Well, it will eventually grow up", I don't care. I care what it is at that very moment.[/quote] What is it at that moment, and why is it not human? What [i]would[/i] make it a human? Intelligence is a poor metric for determining humanity, because we can't 100%-objectively assess intelligence, nor can we rightfully kill unintelligent people merely because they aren't intelligent. [quote]If the damn thing is dependent upon you in every sense of the word, you have every right to do what you want with it.[/quote] You have the [i]capability[/i] to do what you want with it, but is killing a dependent child morally permissible merely because their life in your hands anyways? [quote]And for those of you saying that "What if the guy wants it?" I have an answer. First of all, it's her body, so refer to what I mentioned before. Secondly, is he gonna have to deal with the puking, the nausea, the inability to get comfortable or sleep on your stomach for 9 agonizing months then have to be the one to endure the pain of childbirth? Is he gonna have to be the one to deal with any complications that arise, whether they're major or just merely making her have to piss more often? No. So why the hell should what he wants take precedence over what she wants?[/quote] This is one of those arguments that is completely irrelevant to whether or not abortion is moral. Again, the argument has to strictly deal with humanity. If the fetus is defined as a human from conception, then it doesn't matter how inconvenient the pregnancy is (unless it's life-threatening, which is another matter). Killing an innocent person isn't morally permissible just because it's more convenient for the perpetrator to do so. If the fetus isn't defined as a human [i]ever[/i], then anything goes.
-
Oh how will you understand another persons opinion of a human embryo.
-
Oi OP, Stallcall had really good counter arguments, you gonna respond or what?
-
1 Antworten[quote]could care less[/quote] Downvoted, muted and reported.
-
Your mother should have aborted you. Or at least taught you how to make proper paragraphs.
-
1 AntwortenYou're definitely on to something. I'm not sure why your mom was pro life either. It's beyond me.
-
9 AntwortenI'm pro-life because, guess what? [spoiler]A fetus is a developing human being and should at least get a chance at life. If you don't want a baby, this is why adoption exists[/spoiler] [spoiler]The baby is NOT attached to the mother's body like a tumor, so it technically is still a human being that will be able to make its own life choices. It's not the mother's place to make decisions for something that's not part of "her body"[/spoiler] [spoiler]There are more painful things than child birth. People who make a big deal about it are quite annoying[/spoiler] [spoiler]If women don't want to have children, why do they insist on having sex? They knew the risks, but took them anyway. It's not the baby's fault it was born, it's the fault of the ignorant woman[/spoiler] [spoiler]People who are pro-abortion and say a baby's life doesn't matter, are the ones who get to live[/spoiler] A baby is one of the most beautiful creations a mother can create. Nothing compares to having to take care of an innocent being. There are hardships, but it's worth it. You get to see the child grow, you get to see their life, you get to see them get married, and have kids of their own. People look at the downsides and the pain they have to put up with, and they ignore the beauty and the life they can create [spoiler]And for God's sake, make paragraphs, would you?[/spoiler]
-
4 AntwortenI'm pro-life because adoption exists. Personally I'd prefer my child to have a chance at a better life instead of undergo an abortion, that's just my thoughts though.
-
1 AntwortenWithout abortion the minority population would skyrocket. Of course I support it.
-
Bearbeitet von CDay007: 12/12/2016 4:06:53 PMYou're argument is just utilitarian ideals. "This being [b][i]at this very moment in time[/i][/b] is not useful to me, and therefore it's destruction/death means nothing". However, I think I speak for most pro-lifers when I say we have these things called "morals" and "ethics". We think about the child being a person, who deserves a chance at life. You say that you don't care about what the child could become, just what it is at the time (which by the way, is NOT a parasite). Therefore, it would make sense to turn down an offer of, say, you paying me $100 today with the knowledge that I will pay you $1,000,100 tomorrow, right? I mean, what do you get out of it [i]at the time[/i]?
-
3 Antwortenbecause they are religious lunatics? same reason they want stem cell research banned, which is an utter disgrace
-
Pro choice all the way my dear. We have enough welfare bludgers drains of society. A way to limit more is always a plus. Assisted suicide is also an excellent idea, I don't want to live in pain or just wait to die as food is pumped into my body and my family is forced to visit me out of kindness
-
-
An ape is self aware.
-
I do believe abortion is a right. [spoiler]But c'mon bruh.... condoms..[/spoiler] [spoiler]Ik there's -blam!- but that's a whole other story...[/spoiler]
-
Wow, I couldn't -blam!-ING read any of your post. It's so godawful. Do you mean pro CHOICE?
-
1 AntwortenI do not and will never trust an individual who finds it perfectly acceptable to abort a healthy baby. In my eyes you're no different than the devil himself. If the devil existed. Which makes you worse. Because you do exist. Perhaps your wife/woman who let you have sex with her, will decide (because it is her decision) to abort your healthy child, even though you desperately want to become a father. I hope this doesn't happen to anyone, but maybe then you'll feel different.
-
2 AntwortenAre you pro-death then? You rather everyone just burn in hell? [spoiler]Dafuq is pro-life and why is anyone against it.[/spoiler]
-
4 AntwortenYou need to go back to school and discover paragraphs.
-
14 AntwortenBecause "pro-life" sounds a lot more caring than "we want to punish women for having sex"
-
Even babies can strike fear....
-
-
Different people view the same situation from different perspectives. For your first point, you say that because fetuses are not self aware, they do not qualify as a "person" and, as such, are not entitled to basic human rights. That's a fair argument to make, but others may see things differently. An individual who suffers from Alzheimer's may not possess a sufficient level of self awareness, but does that mean they no longer possess rights? Comatose individuals may fall under the same category. Sure, you could argue that having once possessing awareness they're grandfathered in, or maybe you indeed feel that their rights are forfeit. It doesn't really matter, that's your own opinion and you had every right to have it. Others, however, are free to define their own opinions as to what qualifies as a "person". The legal definition had changed throughout time (certain ethnic groups and/or criminals, for instance, have been said to not qualify at times) and that's part of the discrepancy; "human" or "homo sapien" is objective, "person" is subjective. To some people, "human rights" applies to anything falling under the species, for others it applies to those who meet conditions on an arbitrary checklist. This brings us to your third point (we'll come back to the second). You argue that a fetus is part of the mother's body because it is contained within and reliant on said body. Again, that's a fair argument. Another perspective, however, may point out that the fetus is not made of was mother's tissue; rather, it has it's own unique genetic material. Again, one could argue that when an individual receives a kidney transplant, the organ ceases to belong to the donor and becomes a part of the recipient and, likewise, a fetus within the mother is considered part of the containing body. In cases of in-vitro fertilisation things get really complicated as that could mean tge fetus would be "part of" the surrogate and not the biological mother (potentially forfeiting her rights or limiting the surrogate's). There is, however, one caveat. A fetus is not an organ but an organism, and a genetically unique one at that. To some, that makes it reliant on the mother's/surrogate's body, but not physically part of it. This could be seen as granting it status as a "unique human entity". Back to your second point, "potential". You say it's irrelevant, but that's not necessarily true. Does a factory currently under construction have less value than a currently operating factory? If you need a car built now, yes, but if you want to expand business in the future, no. Likewise, a fully functioning adult might be more valuable as a member of society today, but that 4-year-old is what will allow society to continue to flourish 40 years from now. Sure, you could say "well, one infant less won't make a difference," but the same could be said of one less middle-aged accountant. One is not inherently more or less valuable than the other. So, tl;dr It's all a matter of perspective.
-
If you separate this into readable paragraphs I'll be willing to read what you say and discuss it with you.
