Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know that I'd be morally obligated to. But assuming that I could KNOW I was his only hope, and that every suspicion of it being even more twisted than it already is could be eased, I'd probably agree to it. But of course, this is different because being FORCED to have this person joined to you is quite different than a woman CHOOSING to have another person joined to her. In the event a baby is conceived through rape, I would understand more if she chose to have an abortion. But that's somewhat of a detour from the heart of the subject.
ETA: If you're going to give me this hypothetical for me to compare it to abortion, you should give it to "pro-choicers" for comparison, because you are admitting therein that this is indeed a life they're planning to end.
Thank you
I think it's irrelevant whether it's a separate life or not. Doesn't factor into my views on abortion and I wish people would stop arguing personhood as a main factor in the abortion debate. Any line you draw is arbitrary except birth and conception and most people don't care for either of those extremes.
Having sex, is not a consent to pregnancy. It's a possible consquence that one should be aware of hopefully take precautions to prevent if undesired, but consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy.
And it's nice of you to keep that man living and it's nice that in that scenario you have a choice. What if you didn't? If the scenario were different and that group of music enthusiasts said you would stay there whether you wanted to or not, would that be right of them since it's all to save this man's life?
It's not about what they believe. That was not your point. You said, "Would you deny help to a person in a car crash because they knew the risks when they buckled up?" that is a life threatening situation, not pregnancy.
Say it's not life threatening. Say they've just broken their legs and they can drag themselves out of the car and call a friend to pick them up. Would you deny them medical treatment because they engaged in a risky situation, knowing the possible consquences, and now they just have to deal with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by personwhoisaperson
Driving is something, most people, have to do. You don't have to have sex.
You don't have to drive. Ever. Driving is never necessary as long as you've got feet that work and an alarm clock to wake you up early enough to get where you're going.
But, gosh, that's inconvenient. Driving is fun! It's useful and recreational and, sure, there are dangers but as long as you drive safe then the risks are worth it. Just like sex. Maybe you're asexual and don't feel those desires and find sex nothing but a mechanical nuisance necessary for procreation, but you'll find an overwhelming majority of folks don't jive with that line of thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personwhoisaperson
LIKE WHAT!? What do you gain from sex besides pleasure, physical conection, endorphins, and pregnancy (unless you are infertile)?
Like pleasure and physical connection and endorphins? Not sure why you asked and then answered your own question? Oh, I'd also like to throw in emotional connection and healthy physical activity and satisfying a hormonal drive.
I don't understand that logic. How does a life not start until birth when, while in the womb, it has a heart beat? When someone is hurt and their heart stops beating, they are deemed dead right? So why is it not considered alive when the heart starts beating? I believe that it starts at conception, but I can understand better when someone says "It's alive when it has a heart beat.", not "Life begins at birth."
And slavery? Really? No one forced her to have sex, unless she was raped in which case put the child up for adoption. Even if you weren't raped, and you don't want the child, put it up for adoption.
I said I can agree it is a life. however it is a potential life until it can breathe on it's own.
yes, slavery why should someone be forced to bear a child? as someone else pointed out consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.
you think a rape victim should carry a child then give it up for adoption. talk about adding more trauma to the woman's life if she indeed did not want to bear this child. how cruel and callous you are.
and again, why should women who don't want to be pregnant be breeders for people who want to adopt?
Agreed. Education on everything from birth control and planned parenthood to pregnancy and abortion should be teamed with encouragement to do the right thing regardless of the short-term inconveniences and pains (yes, meaning the full duration of pregnancy and labor).
Spoken like a man who know he never has to deal with those "short-term inconveniences and pains."
I said I can agree it is a life. however it is a potential life until it can breathe on it's own.
No, it is a life at conception, at least at three weeks when it has a heartbeat. Just as when someone dies and their heartbeat stops
yes, slavery why should someone be forced to bear a child? as someone else pointed out consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.
Consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.
you think a rape victim should carry a child then give it up for adoption. talk about adding more trauma to the woman's life if she indeed did not want to bear this child. how cruel and callous you are.
Yes I do. I'm not cruel and callous, but given the choice between murder and caring a child that will have a good life with someone else, I would chose the latter. A cruel person wouldn't do what they expect others to do.
and again, why should women who don't want to be pregnant be breeders for people who want to adopt?
Again, why should they want to murder, when that child can have a good life without the birth mother having any responsibility for the child?
No, it is a life at conception, at least at three weeks when it has a heartbeat. Just as when someone dies and their heartbeat stops
yes, slavery why should someone be forced to bear a child? as someone else pointed out consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.
Consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.
you think a rape victim should carry a child then give it up for adoption. talk about adding more trauma to the woman's life if she indeed did not want to bear this child. how cruel and callous you are.
Yes I do. I'm not cruel and callous, but given the choice between murder and caring a child that will have a good life with someone else, I would chose the latter. A cruel person wouldn't do what they expect others to do.
and again, why should women who don't want to be pregnant be breeders for people who want to adopt? Again, why should they want to murder, when that child can have a good life without the birth mother having any responsibility for the child?
Quote:
Originally Posted by personwhoisaperson
Again, why should they want to murder, when that child can have a good life without the birth mother having any responsibility for the child?
life starting at conception is an opinion, period not a fact. it doesn't really matter anyway if the woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't have to. murder or not it is on her and not you to decide for her.
you need to reexamine what cruel is if you think a woman who was brutally raped and becomes pregnant that does not want to go through pregnancy, delivery and either raising or adopting the resulting baby is not cruel? it is about choice, because you would choose to have the baby doesn't mean other would. calling it murder does not make it so, not all babies given up for adoption have a good life.
why is it your business what choice women make you don't know?
No, you're not. You are a 16-year-old girl, with no real life experiences of her own, who in my opinion, should spend less time trolling these forums and more time on her homeschooling.
Quote:
I am anti-abortion because, I don't believe in killing Innocent babies! That doesn't mean I don't want to know why people believe what they do. I want to know why people think that way, in logical terms. Not the crap that you are spewing!
You are also anti-birth control - of any kind - except perhaps the rhythm method.
A Duggar Wanna-Be!!!!
Quote:
I'm not trying to make anyone believe what I believe,
Yes, you are, which is why you started a thread with a provocative title to try get the attention of people who are passionate about the subject - one way or another.
I think it's irrelevant whether it's a separate life or not. Doesn't factor into my views on abortion and I wish people would stop arguing personhood as a main factor in the abortion debate. Any line you draw is arbitrary except birth and conception and most people don't care for either of those extremes.
Exactly, you THINK it's irrelevant whether the fetus is a life or not. I disagree. But it's obvious that it doesn't "factor into" your views on abortion. Easy to do anything when you simply do not think about the downside. And the line I'm drawing is not arbitrary at all. Pulse (heartbeat), breathing, and neurological activity are the official three signs of life. If you spot an unconscious man lying on the beach, you check if they're breathing, you check their pulse, and later a hospital checks for brain activity before declaring him dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
Having sex, is not a consent to pregnancy. It's a possible consquence that one should be aware of hopefully take precautions to prevent if undesired, but consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy.
It's consent to taking the known risks of getting pregnant, how's that? Either way, it's enough difference between abortion and the scenario I was presented with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
And it's nice of you to keep that man living and it's nice that in that scenario you have a choice. What if you didn't? If the scenario were different and that group of music enthusiasts said you would stay there whether you wanted to or not, would that be right of them since it's all to save this man's life?
I'm not arguing for abortion to be illegal. I'm arguing for abortion to be discouraged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
Spoken like a man who know he never has to deal with those "short-term inconveniences and pains."
And if I say to a woman "You should have the baby and raise it because it's an indescribable blessing", then she says "Not necessarily, not for everyone", I can respond with "Spoken like a woman who has never experienced this blessing"?
The fact is, it's nine months - and considerably less than that for many who are considering late-term abortions. Nine months at max to deal with the consequences of getting an unwanted pregnancy, ending with the pains of labor (which I am not underestimating in any way). Then if (IF) a woman is still sure she doesn't want to raise a child, she can give it up for adoption, giving some hopeful prospective parents out there a chance at the blessing you are taking for granted, in addition to saving a life.
Exactly, you THINK it's irrelevant whether the fetus is a life or not. I disagree. But it's obvious that it doesn't "factor into" your views on abortion. Easy to do anything when you simply do not think about the downside. And the line I'm drawing is not arbitrary at all. Pulse (heartbeat), breathing, and neurological activity are the official three signs of life. If you spot an unconscious man lying on the beach, you check if they're breathing, you check their pulse, and later a hospital checks for brain activity before declaring him dead.
It's consent to taking the known risks of getting pregnant, how's that? Either way, it's enough difference between abortion and the scenario I was presented with.
I'm not arguing for abortion to be illegal. I'm arguing for abortion to be discouraged.
And if I say to a woman "You should have the baby and raise it because it's an indescribable blessing", then she says "Not necessarily, not for everyone", I can respond with "Spoken like a woman who has never experienced this blessing"?
The fact is, it's nine months - and considerably less than that for many who are considering late-term abortions. Nine months at max to deal with the consequences of getting an unwanted pregnancy, ending with the pains of labor (which I am not underestimating in any way). Then if (IF) a woman is still sure she doesn't want to raise a child, she can give it up for adoption, giving some hopeful prospective parents out there a chance at the blessing you are taking for granted, in addition to saving a life.
let me go straight to your last paragraph. "many who are considering late term abortion" ? women don't have late term abortions for funzies. you don't change your mind about being pregnant and wanting a baby or not in the 7th and 8th month. late term abortions are to save the life of the mother or because the baby is severely ill and would either die shortly after birth or is already dead.
women who have had children don't all consider pregnancy a blessing. many women have difficult pregnancies. don't assume because one has had children that pregnancy would be a joy for all
again, why should women be breeders, having to go through labor then give up the children for someone looking to adopt?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
