The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
If a foetus has a serious genetic defect (its life will be comprised of sitting in a chair and drooling) do you think a compulsory abortion should take place?
Page:
Compulsory abortions? Why didn't Hitler think of that? The master race could have come along so much quicker without so many of us mortals in the way...
If it's always morally wrong to abort, however, because you're not giving someone a chance at life.
There has to be a stage between conception and birth where a lump of cells becomes a person, and if you abort at a time when it's just cells then you're not killing someone, you're just preventing a potential person living.
you have to wonder whether it's morally wrong to use contraception. The morning after pill? Condoms? It's all stopping a potential person being born.
Then surely it's morally wrong to decide not to have sex purely to avoid getting pregnant? It's the same thing, potential person doesn't happen.
Every time a woman has her period, every time a man has a w***.
And don't forget, there are billions more sperm being produced than there are eggs, surely we have to genetically engineer all that DNA into life, otherwise we're murdering all those potential people.
Obviously it'd be ridiculous to give potential people a right to life, so abortion at a stage before those cells can be considered a person must be acceptable. Yes?
On another slant - some woman decides to have no more than 2 kids in her life.
She gets pregnant at 15. She can either:
1. Start her family now, have 2 kids by age 18, bring them up on welfare. The dad's long gone, they scrape by along the poverty line in unhappiness.
2. Abort this one, then when she's settled down, financially secure in her late 20s (or whatever), have 2 other kids, giving them a happy stable and secure life.
But ultimately, it's a choice between which 2 kids survive and which 2 never even exist.
Either way, you ARE preventing some potential people from having a life.
And most cases won't be too far from this example - people do get to a certain number of kids and decide it's enough, whether they enforce it with sterilisation, contraception or abortion. Many (if not most) abortions in all likelihood allow for another potential person further down the line to have a life instead. And probably a better life.
Which one do you anti-abortionists choose to 'kill'?
If it's always morally wrong to abort, however, because you're not giving someone a chance at life.
There has to be a stage between conception and birth where a lump of cells becomes a person, and if you abort at a time when it's just cells then you're not killing someone, you're just preventing a potential person living.
you have to wonder whether it's morally wrong to use contraception. The morning after pill? Condoms? It's all stopping a potential person being born.
Then surely it's morally wrong to decide not to have sex purely to avoid getting pregnant? It's the same thing, potential person doesn't happen.
Every time a woman has her period, every time a man has a w***.
And don't forget, there are billions more sperm being produced than there are eggs, surely we have to genetically engineer all that DNA into life, otherwise we're murdering all those potential people.
Obviously it'd be ridiculous to give potential people a right to life, so abortion at a stage before those cells can be considered a person must be acceptable. Yes?
On another slant - some woman decides to have no more than 2 kids in her life.
She gets pregnant at 15. She can either:
1. Start her family now, have 2 kids by age 18, bring them up on welfare. The dad's long gone, they scrape by along the poverty line in unhappiness.
2. Abort this one, then when she's settled down, financially secure in her late 20s (or whatever), have 2 other kids, giving them a happy stable and secure life.
But ultimately, it's a choice between which 2 kids survive and which 2 never even exist.
Either way, you ARE preventing some potential people from having a life.
And most cases won't be too far from this example - people do get to a certain number of kids and decide it's enough, whether they enforce it with sterilisation, contraception or abortion. Many (if not most) abortions in all likelihood allow for another potential person further down the line to have a life instead. And probably a better life.
Which one do you anti-abortionists choose to 'kill'?
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> I'm beginning to think FF is an old regular or notable here to wind us
> up.
>
> it has to be that, no-one is so obtuse.
No, I came here just over 200 days ago and have been debating since the end of last year, as my profile will tell you.
> I'm beginning to think FF is an old regular or notable here to wind us
> up.
>
> it has to be that, no-one is so obtuse.
No, I came here just over 200 days ago and have been debating since the end of last year, as my profile will tell you.
No.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> You're taking the pi$$ here forest fan, you really believe that babies
> in the womb feel ANYTHING at all when they are aborted?
>
> what do you think they use you idiot, a 12 gauge?
No, they pull off the baby's arms and legs, then crush the body. What do you think, eh? Is this fair? Is this a nice way to die?
> You're taking the pi$$ here forest fan, you really believe that babies
> in the womb feel ANYTHING at all when they are aborted?
>
> what do you think they use you idiot, a 12 gauge?
No, they pull off the baby's arms and legs, then crush the body. What do you think, eh? Is this fair? Is this a nice way to die?
And it doesn't eat and drink consiously - it doesn't go "Hmmm, I'm a bit peckish" and makes a sandwich - it gets fed, which is a totally different thing.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Well, it's alive, it thinks, it moves, it eats and it drinks.
I would say that the foetus is incapable of thought, the necessary neurone connections are not in place for such a process to happen. Also did you really have to bring religion into it?
> Well, it's alive, it thinks, it moves, it eats and it drinks.
I would say that the foetus is incapable of thought, the necessary neurone connections are not in place for such a process to happen. Also did you really have to bring religion into it?
It should definitely not be compulsory but is a decision purely for the parents. It is also quite difficult for you to judge without actually having faced making that decision.
Some parents make the decision to cope and take joy from the birth of a child regardless. Other people known that they would not be able to handle the demanding care that giving birth would entail.
It can be a heartbreaking decision either way.
Some parents make the decision to cope and take joy from the birth of a child regardless. Other people known that they would not be able to handle the demanding care that giving birth would entail.
It can be a heartbreaking decision either way.
Not compulsory abortion, no. The parents should make the decision.
I suppose aborted babies go to hell too, because they haven't asked Jesus to come into their lives.
cookie monster wrote:
> If a foetus has a serious genetic defect (its life will be comprised
> of sitting in a chair and drooling) do you think a compulsory
> abortion should take place?
No, they should have a right to life. However, I am for euthanasia, but the person involved should sign for their own death and no one else, in case they want to be gotten rid off by a nasty relative.
Of course, if they are a retard and can't sign then a personal potato stamp will do just as well.
That was just wrong.
> If a foetus has a serious genetic defect (its life will be comprised
> of sitting in a chair and drooling) do you think a compulsory
> abortion should take place?
No, they should have a right to life. However, I am for euthanasia, but the person involved should sign for their own death and no one else, in case they want to be gotten rid off by a nasty relative.
Of course, if they are a retard and can't sign then a personal potato stamp will do just as well.
That was just wrong.
Page: