Abortion....According to KingRaw

"So if you are poor, have a disease, abusive parents, drug addicted parents, (mothers life is in danger is less than 1% of the abortion cases according to the CDC.) or whatever else you quoted....then that means that you do not warrant equal protection as a human being?"


If you are a 4 week old fetus, then yes. It's the more responsible thing to do than keep the child and have it starve, die of a disease, get molested or smacked around or addicted to drugs.



"With all due respect, here's what I hear you saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view. Privately, you'll let me think whatever I want, but you don't want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you. "


Would you tolerate a racist going around saying racist things?


"Then don't listen to them."


It's hard not to when one of them is the president and others are on the news all the time.
 
KingRaw! said:
"So if you are poor, have a disease, abusive parents, drug addicted parents, (mothers life is in danger is less than 1% of the abortion cases according to the CDC.) or whatever else you quoted....then that means that you do not warrant equal protection as a human being?"


If you are a 4 week old fetus, then yes. It's the more responsible thing to do than keep the child and have it starve, die of a disease, get molested or smacked around or addicted to drugs.
Click to expand...

Amazing. All smoke in mirrors. You assume that ALL of these things will happen to these children so the best thing to do is kill them. Again, all of this is smoke in mirrors. How do you or anyone else KNOW that these kid's life will not be "valuable" in your definition?
 
firemedic227 said:
Amazing. All smoke in mirrors. You assume that ALL of these things will happen to these children so the best thing to do is kill them. Again, all of this is smoke in mirrors. How do you or anyone else KNOW that these kid's life will not be "valuable" in your definition?
Click to expand...

We could actually pretty much get rid of most inheritable diseases through special in vitro fertilization processes... but you'd have to throw away fertilized eggs for that.
 
"Amazing. All smoke in mirrors. You assume that ALL of these things will happen to these children so the best thing to do is kill them. Again, all of this is smoke in mirrors. How do you or anyone else KNOW that these kid's life will not be "valuable" in your definition?"


Go to Africa and look at all of the starving children that are dying of AIDS. Do I have to tell you how many children are abused and molested by their parents? Or how many people are in poverty or extreme poverty and all the other things I listed? To think that those things aren't going on in the world is insane.
 
Watermark said:
What is your opinion on in vitro, anyway?
Click to expand...

A fertilized egg is the beginning of life. Not just my opinion but also the scientific community.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)

Therefore if you believe that all human life is "valuable" then I would have to say I would probably be against destroying human life. Now, I have to admit I don't know much about in vitro.
 
KingRaw! said:
"Amazing. All smoke in mirrors. You assume that ALL of these things will happen to these children so the best thing to do is kill them. Again, all of this is smoke in mirrors. How do you or anyone else KNOW that these kid's life will not be "valuable" in your definition?"


Go to Africa and look at all of the starving children that are dying of AIDS. Do I have to tell you how many children are abused and molested by their parents? Or how many people are in poverty or extreme poverty and all the other things I listed? To think that those things aren't going on in the world is insane.
Click to expand...
He never said that those things weren't going on, just that your version of valuable might be lacking.
 
firemedic227 said:
A fertilized egg is the beginning of life. Not just my opinion but also the scientific community.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)

Therefore if you believe that all human life is "valuable" then I would have to say I would probably be against destroying human life. Now, I have to admit I don't know much about in vitro.
Click to expand...

I remember as a kid my parents would always get me science magazines, and being a dork I'd always read them cover to cover. As I was an evangelical at the time, I found it objectionable the way most of the science writers and scientists in general seemed to believe that my pro-life position was "close-minded".

Anyway, it was just stuff like that, and the general liberal attitude of about 90% of scientists, that I was basing it on. That might be considered uncited material, but I think it would be common knowledge...
 
KingRaw! said:
"Amazing. All smoke in mirrors. You assume that ALL of these things will happen to these children so the best thing to do is kill them. Again, all of this is smoke in mirrors. How do you or anyone else KNOW that these kid's life will not be "valuable" in your definition?"


Go to Africa and look at all of the starving children that are dying of AIDS. Do I have to tell you how many children are abused and molested by their parents? Or how many people are in poverty or extreme poverty and all the other things I listed? To think that those things aren't going on in the world is insane.
Click to expand...

Again, all smoke in mirrors to avoid the real issue here, the value of human life. So again because these bad things happen then not only are they abused but their right of any protection granted to them simply from being human should be taken from them in order to protect them? I agree that those things suck! That should not however disqualify them the chance to survive.
 
Watermark said:
I remember as a kid my parents would always get me science magazines, and being a dork I'd always read them cover to cover. As I was an evangelical at the time, I found it objectionable the way most of the science writers and scientists in general seemed to believe that my pro-life position was "close-minded".

Anyway, it was just stuff like that, and the general liberal attitude of about 90% of scientists, that I was basing it on. That might be considered uncited material, but I think it would be common knowledge...
Click to expand...

Prove your case. If that is truth then how can "closed-minded" be considered scientific? Again, the term "closed-minded" is a moral term and science does not define morals.
 
"Again, all smoke in mirrors to avoid the real issue here, the value of human life. So again because these bad things happen then not only are they abused but their right of any protection granted to them simply from being human should be taken from them in order to protect them? I agree that those things suck! That should not however disqualify them the chance to survive."


Well, if the parent thinks the child would be better off not being born at all than have a horrible life, then they should have the right to have an abortion before the fetus develops too much.
 
firemedic227 said:
Again, all smoke in mirrors to avoid the real issue here, the value of human life. So again because these bad things happen then not only are they abused but their right of any protection granted to them simply from being human should be taken from them in order to protect them? I agree that those things suck! That should not however disqualify them the chance to survive.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of anencephaly? It's whenever a baby is born literally without a brain, except for the a stem which does rudimentary things required for life sustainment. They cannot feel, or think, and usually they die because of starvation (trying to make them live for a long period of time would be fruitless, being that their brainstem is literally exposed and they would die of infection). This is basically the state an embryo is in. While I can see how some people would feel it's wrong to just outright end the development of the life, I just can't see how you could really consider that a "person" under normal terms. I'd rather just leave the issue up to the individual rather than the government.
 
Last edited:
KingRaw! said:
"Again, all smoke in mirrors to avoid the real issue here, the value of human life. So again because these bad things happen then not only are they abused but their right of any protection granted to them simply from being human should be taken from them in order to protect them? I agree that those things suck! That should not however disqualify them the chance to survive."


Well, if the parent thinks the child would be better off not being born at all than have a horrible life, then they should have the right to have an abortion before the fetus develops too much.
Click to expand...

See, this is a MORAL question. The question is "what is human". If a human is defined as human in all stages of development (as I quoted from the textbooks before) then the human should have the same protections in all stages.

You say that if the parents decide that it would be better off not being born then why then should they not be able to kill it at two years old because they feel it is having a horrible life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top