Racial turn for abortion debate

Ice Dancer said:
Your argument is old and the rationale wanting. To choose to save your own life is a valid right- I do not whole heartedly support abortion for rape (which includes incest) but given the small number of abortions for this purpose, could make a consession that the violation of the rape carries with it a "special" circumstance that grants the victim of said rape a unique right.

Again you wish to make the argument about less then 1% of actual abortions...it's again disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do put forth the same old arguments because they are valid. If a woman is allowed to kill her innocent offspring (abort) in order to save her own life then consider the following. Picture a mother and 10 year old daughter standing on a balcony of an old burning building while waiting for the fire truck to come and rescue them. Meanwhile, the balcony is starting to fall away from the building due to the combined weight of mother and child. According to your logic the mother has the right to push her 10 year old daughter off the balcony to her certain death in order for the mother to save her own life.

If a fetus is a human being and a woman is permitted to kill it, even though it is not doing anything wrong, why wouldn't she be allowed to push her 10 year old daughter off the balcony? What difference do you see, if any? Both are a direct threat to her life even though neither are doing anything wrong.

While my arguments generally concern a very small portion of abortions the point is the exceptions, the concessions that are necessary, not only devalue all human beings but clearly show the value we place on human beings, the rules society lives by, can not be applied to fetuses.

While we've probably discussed this before I'd like to see your answer regarding the "balcony scenario" so as to keep the continuity of the thread. What difference, if any, do you see between the woman on the balcony and a woman obtaining an abortion for health reasons?
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, I do put forth the same old arguments because they are valid. If a woman is allowed to kill her innocent offspring (abort) in order to save her own life then consider the following. Picture a mother and 10 year old daughter standing on a balcony of an old burning building while waiting for the fire truck to come and rescue them. Meanwhile, the balcony is starting to fall away from the building due to the combined weight of mother and child. According to your logic the mother has the right to push her 10 year old daughter off the balcony to her certain death in order for the mother to save her own life.

If a fetus is a human being and a woman is permitted to kill it, even though it is not doing anything wrong, why wouldn't she be allowed to push her 10 year old daughter off the balcony? What difference do you see, if any? Both are a direct threat to her life even though neither are doing anything wrong.

While my arguments generally concern a very small portion of abortions the point is the exceptions, the concessions that are necessary, not only devalue all human beings but clearly show the value we place on human beings, the rules society lives by, can not be applied to fetuses.

While we've probably discussed this before I'd like to see your answer regarding the "balcony scenario" so as to keep the continuity of the thread. What difference, if any, do you see between the woman on the balcony and a woman obtaining an abortion for health reasons?
Click to expand...

you ignore the other option.....we carry you up to the balcony, take both the mother and daughter, and let you burn for making the same stupid arguments over and over.....
 
apple0154 said:
I've given it considerable thought. Would I have wanted to be born in a ghetto, been a high school drop-out and spent the next 40 years living in poverty? Going through life slowly having my teeth removed because I couldn't afford a dentist for check-ups and fillings? Suffering physical ailments because I couldn't afford a doctor? Or joined a gang, got shot and spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair or jail?

As for asking someone which option they would choose, unfortunately, nature programs living creatures to fight for life regardless of the circumstances. They become "conditioned", for lack of a better word.

Witness a child that has been physically abused. It will still want to stay with it's parent. Even an abused animal, like a dog, will still try to protect it's abuser (master).

Why would anyone choose abject poverty over the option of not having been born at all? Why would anyone choose pain and constant hardship?

I encourage everyone here who is anti-abortion to answer that.
Click to expand...

So, Apple, can I get your affirmation, that had you been born into the 19th Century or earlier--which, compared to our beloved 21st, were harsh, gritty, overwhelming times--that you would have offed yourself at the earliest possible convenience?
 
King of Hoops said:
So, Apple, can I get your affirmation, that had you been born into the 19th Century or earlier--which, compared to our beloved 21st, were harsh, gritty, overwhelming times--that you would have offed yourself at the earliest possible convenience?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not because I wouldn't have known anything different.
 
apple0154 said:
Absolutely not because I wouldn't have known anything different.
Click to expand...

Ergo~ First no one can say with any kind of absolute certainly what the child's life, if allowed to live, will/would be. Killing a child becuase you want to spare them a life you can not predict is a horrendously evil and arrogant position to take. By your own statement if you knew no better you would not wish for death. Who are you to then take that choice from the child?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Ergo~ First no one can say with any kind of absolute certainly what the child's life, if allowed to live, will/would be.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. Especially a young, single mother. She knows she'll not continue her education resulting in her child growing up in poverty. She knows as she struggles every day to make ends meet she'll feel animosity towards the child blaming it for having deprived her of a decent life.

Killing a child becuase you want to spare them a life you can not predict is a horrendously evil and arrogant position to take. By your own statement if you knew no better you would not wish for death. Who are you to then take that choice from the child?
Click to expand...

It's not killing a child. It is preventing bringing a child into the world. It is stopping a process that is likely to result in a child being born.

As for not knowing any better, believe me, the child will know better. That's why gangs are so prevalent. The child will find the necessary bond, the sense of belonging, on the street if not in the home.

Who fills the prisons? It's the children, now adults, who found out there was a better life but never had the opportunity and guidance to learn how to obtain it the legal way.
 
apple0154 said:
You talk about choice but a person does not get to choose into what life they’ll be thrown. The individual bringing that person into the world made the choice for them and as far as the person choosing to fight, as I mentioned before, nature has instilled in living creatures the desire to live, regardless of circumstances.
Click to expand...

I know that we don't choose the life we are thrown into. Why do you keep insisting upon avoiding the question? Would YOU choose to die vs. having a chance?


It is not a choice I could have made. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses do not and can not make choices. It is up to the pregnant women to determine the degree of suffering to which she’s willing to subject her offspring.
Click to expand...
\

Now you are just being absurd. I am well aware of the fact that the choice cannot be made by the unborn. The question was... would YOU.... today... if given the CHOICE.... no matter how hard/easy your life has been.... IF you could go back to when your mother was pregnant with you and CHOOSE.... would you choose life or death?

It is a simple question.... you are trying to avoid answering it because you know 99.99999999999% of the people will choose life.
 
apple0154 said:
If we want to talk about a moral grey area the height of hypocracy is anti-abortionists preaching the sanctity of life while allowing abortions for rape/incest. Kill a human being depending on who it's father is? Can we get any more absurd?
Click to expand...

1) There is a difference.... with a rape, the woman does not CHOOSE to have sex, does not CHOOSE whether to use protection or not

2) That said, I do agree that there is a degree of hypocrisy... but again, with rape there is no choice on the part of the woman. While I would still ask her to support the life of the child, she has to have some choice in the matter. I know you pro-abortionists love to toss around rape and incest, which account for about what... maybe 1% of all abortions (if that).... it is again one of your ways to try and paint pro-lifers as monsters. You want to say 'they would ask a rape victim to keep the child.... MONSTERS!!!'... if a pro-lifer says what I just did, you will then shout 'Hypocrisy!!!'.

Bottom line never changes though.... an abortion ends a human life.... PERIOD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top