ABORTION - Right or Wrong - Page 30

Does specific cases of stealing, murder, child abuse, or rape avoid moral judgment or get a free pass on moral debate?

As much as I feel for women that are raped, I cannot come to believe that the manner of creation makes one's actions morally different. Either killing the unborn is right, or wrong. I fail to see how the manner of creation, whether it be rape, condom broke, BC failed, or carelessness is relevant.

She would only technically be forced to carry the child to term. Adoption is always option.

Where is the logic in claiming that how a human is created determines whether it has a right to live? Does that mean if we create an army in test tubes they are only humans bread for war? Or if someone creates life in a test tube they can be created for the sole purpose of sexual slavery? The manner in how one is created should not in any means or way determine whether they should have human rights to life and liberty.

Either killing humans is wrong or its right. If its both, and circumstances determine if its right or wrong, such circumstances are always associated with the immediate event, not how the human came to be on this earth.

In which case, either killing the unborn is right or wrong. I say its wrong, cause human rights is based on humanity. We give every born human rights to life, by virtue of being human. The unborn meet the same criteria. We have no reasonable basis to determine which humans have which rights. And we have struggled for thousands of years trying to rid this planet of philosophies that are bent trying to differentiate between humans. So if we want to actually progress human rights, we need to include MORE humans, not exclude humans.

You have strong arguments.

Its not an excuse...but adoption does not gurantee a happy life for said child. And it doesn't even gurantee the child parents. If it did...there wouldn't be orphanages at all.

The problem I see...is that nowadays, liberty is very selective. Orphanages are a horrible way to grow up, and fairly common. Let's say that every 'accidental' person is born. Given our economy...and how very little our 'Billionaire's' are willing to contribute...don't you think the orphanage would fill very quick? What happens to the children who they have no room for? Heck, what happens to all the children that no one adopts?

Everyone has a shot at life...but so many have such sad chances before they are even born due to economy and limited resources. I can't speak for anyone else but me...but I would rather not be born into it than suffer for my entire life...especially because of a mistake.

I wasn't trying to keep the thread going longer. Just making my a statement. Feel free to close it. I'm done now. Sorry, Wo Daddy Wo.

quote Epsalon X

Its not an excuse...but adoption does not gurantee a happy life for said child. And it doesn't even gurantee the child parents. If it did...there wouldn't be orphanages at all.

As it was already pointed out, nobody is guaranteed a happy life. That is irrelevant, the DoI suggests that everyone has the right to PURSUE happiness, which is not a guarantee.

Newborns are in very much high demand. There are waiting lists for newborns. Orphanages generally hold two kinds of children, un-adoptable children as these children are in suspension essentially because their parents have not lost all their parental rights, but the state removed them from homes. And then there are adoptable children that almost always are older. But newborns? They don't sit around orphanages waiting to be adopted.

quote Epsalon X

Everyone has a shot at life...but so many have such sad chances before they are even born due to economy and limited resources. I can't speak for anyone else but me...but I would rather not be born into it than suffer for my entire life...especially because of a mistake.

Fighting against human suffering is always something I can get behind, right up until the point where we kill the human that might suffer. This is where it gets dangerous. In the name of suffering, we can do all kinds of good, and help prevent it, but sure enough, it goes so far as to terminate the suffer-er, rather then trying to eliminate the suffering. I could get behind euthanasia, because someone gets to decide for themselves if their own life is worth living, but that is not what is going on here. Instead you are suggesting that you get to determine who's life is worth living, and I would never allow someone else to make that decision for me, so there is no reason that I would allow you or someone else to make that decision for another.

Its not our place to determine who's life is worth living. Its not our place to claim that their lives are so miserable, that we should put them to death. That is far too much power, and is way too easy to abuse. its a slippery slope that shouldn't exist, and never should we head down that path by granting ourselves such responsibility.

Even unwanted human beings should have rights. Even unwanted human beings should be given a chance to live, and a chance to find happiness.

quote LordMegatron

A cluster of cells is NOT A FREAKING HUMAN BEING.

Exactly. It's a potential human being; but then again, so is every single reproductive cell our body carries.
Just had sex with a condom, *bleep*, I'm a murderer as well as a hero.
That girl just had her period, crazy psycho killer bitch!

I know this isn't how anyone directly feels, but until a foetus is scientifically proven to have "become a human being", it's not human. But then again, there's a whole other argument attributed to the answer to that.

chiroVette
It was a bad night

lol Kedjown, funny stuff, not to mention profoundly true.

Soooooo...it's time to tank this beast now at 30. This bizarrely repetitive merry-go-round is finally over. Wo, Curt, or I will choose the next limited engagement thread soon.

Thread Closed

Edit: lol Wo.


tee hee