Abortionists, why have kids just to sacrifice them?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by 4Horsemen, Dec 14, 2011.

  1. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you just get yourself fixed prior to becoming sexually active?

    and save the "what if I was raped" rant.

    the percentage of rape babies is way below the normal abortion consent numbers by the female.

    you can't tell me that 95% of all abortions are from rapes. that's a lie. the majority are from unwanted pregnancies. FACT

    So why waste taxpayer money to do this? why not tie your tubes and save the world some grief from killing your baby?
     
  2. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, it's surgery, and all surgery entails significant risk. Second, it's not easily undone when a woman is ready and capable for having and raising a child. Third, were a procedure to be created that would allow for such a method of birth control and then marketed to sexually active, young, teenage girls, the segment of society that also tends to be pro-life would be up in arms to quash it and seek regulation to prevent it.
     
    Iriemon and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well first of all most women who become sexually active in their early years want children, just not right now.

    A tubal ligation is a (usually) permanent procedure. It is not easy to return a tubal ligation back to normal after a woman has had one when she finally wants children.

    Also a tubal ligation is not 100% either. My boyfriend was actually conceived even after his mother had this procedure done surprisingly enough. It's certainly rare that a woman gets pregnant after she's had a tubal ligation, but it's still possible.

    And it's extremely difficult to find a doctor who will even do the procedure on you if you don't already have at least two to three kids. I know quite a few childfree women who have sought out a tubal ligation to permanently sterilize them but it was difficult because of their age and the fact that they had no living children. Doctors don't want to be sued later on when they can't reverse the procedure for women who they think will eventually realize they want a baby.

    Is somebody telling you that? Because they are seriously misinformed.

    I agree, tax payer money should not pay for women's abortions, let alone ANY healthcare. But that's a whole other discussion in itself.
     
  4. prometeus

    prometeus Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,684
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go for it, if that is your choice, but let others make their own.

    No one claimed that so you are blowing hot air for nothing.

    Waste how?

    No one is killing babies but you can save a lot of grief too by staying out of people's lives.
     
    OKgrannie and (deleted member) like this.
  5. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If she doesn't want kids just right then, why should she go through unnecessary surgery just because her birth control might fail?
     
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes, Why indeed have children just to watch them die?

    [​IMG]
     
    Makedde and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This "risk" should be taken to avoid the homicide of a human being. The risk of death is miniscule in the tube tying process and the risk of death from an abortion is 100% to the child in utero.
     
  8. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and the alternative is to just get pregnant and kill it?

    doesn't sound too logical. or moral. sounds down right inhumane and sick.

    the current method is encouraging more promiscuity imo. If they know all they have to do is kill it or dump it in the trash, what kind of sick message are we sending to our young females?
     
  9. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    then why not work on being mentally strong enough to at least have their boyfriend wear protection until they are ready and able to afford them?

    sounds like Parents are dropping the ball in this area.

    no, but the rap issue always comes up in these debates as if that is the maajor reason for having an abortion. just wanted to kill that notion before anybody tries to use it in this debate.
     
  10. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    To avoid the possibility of committing a premeditated homicide against her own child (in utero).
     
  11. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0

    what you posted is a forced famine on a country by Governments, not the same as what I'm talking about.
     
  12. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It is better to intentionally kill them? You are sick!
     
  13. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Having her tubes tied means she is unlikely to ever fall pregnant, even if she wants kids some day.
     
  14. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I knew they were going to suffer like that, I'd be the first one at the abortion clinic. No shame.
     
    4Horsemen and (deleted member) like this.
  15. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because in most western countries and societies you cannot force your will upon others. We can cry and cry all we like for people not to have sex, but the fact remains that people are going to have sex regardless of how much we say they shouldn't here on this Internet forum. It's only natural that people have sexual desires and like to be intimate with their partners.

    The best thing to do then is to teach people how to properly protect themselves. Spread sex education, spread contraceptive awareness, inform both men and women on how to protect themselves during intercourse not only from pregnancy but from disease.

    Protection fails though and people domake mistakes though. It certainly doesn't mean they should be punished and forced/coerced into continuing with nine months of pregnancy and painful childbirth against their wills. Women have a right to control their reproductive organs and it is up to them to determine how they will go about doing so, whether they use the pill, an iud, tubal ligation, an abortion, or even choosing to give birth then that is their choice and it should remain their choice.

    The rape issue is brought up for consistency purposes. Lifers tend to be A-ok with abortions due to rape/incest but if the woman consented to the sex then it's not ok. A fetus conceived of rape is essentially the exact same as a fetus conceived via consensual sex, so why is the life of one fetus more worthy of life than the other? When lifers make the rape exception it shows that they care more about the way the fetus was conceived than the fetus itself, thus bringing on the idea that lifers probably just want to punish women who choose to have sex. I mean, why else would they make a rape exception? A life is a life? Is it not?
     
  16. Cady

    Cady Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,661
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's better to terminate the pregnancy. You think it's better to bring them into the world only to starve them and force them to suffer and die in agony? You are sick!
     
  17. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So what? Isn't no having kids preferable to becoming a killer of your own child (in utero)?
     
  18. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But we all know that nobody can know what a child's fate will be with complete certainty!!!
     
  19. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is clearly not true. In ALL western societies the will of the people that murder should not be allowed is forced upon the people. This is not about prohibiting sex, it is about NOT committing homicides.

    I agree, lealized abortion is not required to do these things.

    Proper protection never fails. If you know you are likely to kill your child in utero if you become pregnant, you should take whatever precautions are required to prevent pregnancy including either surgery or abstinence.



    :laughing:

    Now that is funny. No it isn't, it is brought up to take a miniscule exception and try to justify a horrific position based on it.
     
  20. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think it is deplorable to assume you know what the fate of a given child will be and pre-emptively slaughter them because you think you know something you clearly don't!!!!
     
  21. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Assuming the child never develops a mind before its killed, it is preferable indeed.
    In the first case, someone sentient suffers (the woman which cannot have kids). In the second case, noone sentient suffers (the killed child is not yet sentient).

    There is nothing wrong with killing non-sentient life (especially if it benefits sentient life), no matter its DNA sequence.
     
    4Horsemen and (deleted member) like this.
  22. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is just your opinion (obviously) and I disagree completely. "Sentience" is not a valid threshold to prtect human life. FOr one thing it is arbitrary as not all humans reach that point at the same exact time in development. This means any trimester threshold is arbitrary and unsufficient to accomplish the goal it is purported to have.
     
  23. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Its no less valid than your opinion (obviously).

    Appearance of sentience is pretty exact, enough for our purposes:
    http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
    Even if we simply took the lowest common denominator (earliest possible time for sentience to develop + some buffer), still at least abortion in the first trimester would be legal, since we are 100% sure fetus cannot contain mind in the first trimester. I am OK even with such legislation, if we want to be 100% sure we wont kill a sentient being.

    Overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester anyway.
     
  24. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Absolutely exact would be the only "exact enough".


    It is all irrelevant, because that is an irrational and insignificant threshold.

    The difference between our points of view are that I am looking at this objectively, and you are searching for justification for abortion.
     
  25. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why?

    Even conception takes some time, its not instantaneous (nothing in this universe is).

    Your subjective opinion. I disagree. The question of sentience is central for the answer to the question of rights for me.

    There is nothing objective about your opinion that human life should have rights even without mind (just like there is nothing objetive about my opinion). Its a moral claim (claim about values and not facts).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

    I am not looking to justify my opinion, I just dont see any reason why protect unsentient life (regardless of its DNA sequence).

    I can say you are looking for justification to punish women for sexual irresponsibility, if we want to go down the strawman path (or is it not a strawman? :mrgreen: )
     

Share This Page