|
|
|
| High Mage Serratus wrote: | | Quote: | | So, Serratus: Have you ever heard of an orphanage? |
So Macht: Have you heard of how badly run and abusive orphanages are? Have you heard how a child in an orphanage has a significantly higher chance of depression, PSD and suicide than a normal child? |
*cough*
1) I didn't post the original quote.
2) Read my post here:
| Quote: | | the Success rate in life is not good. You're pretty much screwed from the time you're born. Of course, we'll "save" babies an not allow them misery: rather, we'll kill them to make sure their mother can have sex without consequence. And yes, in rape victims it's incredibly sad, but their child IS EQUAL to that of a normal child. |
3) Are you implying death is a better option than depression? Are you using the life potential argument? Hypocrite! You are stating you'd like to have depressed human beings killed! Or are humans in orphanages worth less than normal depressed ones?
4) I see the argument gradually sliding in the pro-life favor,
| Quote: | | Orphanages and foster care are not good solutions. Most aren't well run and kids aren't always well treated. I still think the choice should be the woman's. Us guys have a lot to say, but how many of us don't care for the kids we are half responsible for making? |
1) No, they are not good solutions, but they are solutions. The best solution would be a mother and father both caring for a child, then there's having a relative care for it. It's not good, but it's better than death.
2) They may not be treated well, but they're kept alive.
3) Why? Almost all pro-death (pro-abortion, pro-choice, etc.) people are arguing on the base of the life potential idea which they themselves consider invalid. You assume that the baby will bring the woman hardships: what about our legal system? Guilty until proven innocent. First, a baby has committed no crime and deserves no punishment. Second, you are assuming the child is going to lead a pointless life of evil and make the mother suffer. I do realize many pro-life people argue that the baby will lead a life of greatness, but let's look at a life of indifference! Please refer to this post and to rebels.myfreeforum.org in the abortion debate section for a complete ownage of the pro-death argument.
| Quote: | Yeah, it's tough, but people often don't think about the products of sex. If she is pregnant because she willingly had sex, then she MUST take the consequences of that action: a baby. Abortion- while being murder- is ignoring what you have done by causing displeasure to the life of another being (death).
And you may say: "But when she was raped she didn't have a choice. Why should she suffer with a child?"
In that way you are talking about the inequality of two fetuses: a "nobility" amongst unborn children. Is one worth more than the other? NO!
You like to talk about how they must suffer: the child must suffer as well in the case of abortion. I tend not to delve into that life potential crud which is an invalid argument (for both sides) but.... the baby is likely not to destroy the life of the mother. You are using the life potential idea to say the baby will force the mother to suffer. Use the innocent until proven guilty theory here and we come to the conclusion: we don't know whether or not it will destroy, help or remain indifferent toward the life of the mother. So how about we assume indifference? Let the baby live: we don't shoot normal people in real life (.... in Nationstates the Holy Empire of Augarundus does but still....) who have committed no crime, so why kill an unborn fetus that has done nothing and likely will do nothing if it has a chance of not harming the mother.
And when her life is indanger, you should be able to indirectly kill the fetus rather than directly go after it ONLY WHEN ALL WAYS OF SAVING THEM BOTH ARE EXHAUSTED. In the case the mother will die and the fetus will live, or the mother will live and the fetus will die doctors should do nothing to kill one or the other in an attempt to keep them both alive.
There are radical eve-angelical maniacs out there who argue the life potential idea for pro-life. But I see that a large amount of pro-death (pro-choice, pro-abortion, etc.) people arguing the life potential crud as well. Surprisingly, this is what most of your hypocritical arguments stand on.
Except Sam, who doesn't argue but, rather, says "Seti owned all pro-life people" whereas Yoda owned all pro-death people. |
[/quote]
_________________
Patron: Darth Nihilus
|
|
