Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
True... Let's go back to the american election talk show...
Obama ... Romney ... What's the difference?
To say it in Republican words: Do you want an honest rape or a legitimate rape?
To say it in Republican words: Do you want an honest rape or a legitimate rape?
Ignoring to be pregnant for 8 month would clearly be a good thing to abort, no ?
To me it still seems as if you approve abortion at any time before the actual birth. And in any case, those pointless disputes about when is the last acceptable time for abortion are all equally hypocritical to me. After conception, it doesn't really matter when you kill. With conception that person was already put to existence. He/she was already coded (not by human will) and then a human decided to click abort and delete.
I have another solution here : Let understand what is the position of living and dying for everyone... My aim is to see every old person valid or not decide to die for the goodness of humanity.... Thus your question would be useless... Otherwise, your question depends on many factors : in which country you live, in which side you are... What is your own goal ?...
You still didn't answer my question. What makes the difference? What is the factor that makes an unborn child a valid target for convenient deletion and still doesn't make a quadriplegic or a terminally ill person?
Is it maybe different because we don't know whether this child wants to live or not regardless of possibly difficult conditions that await him or her? What would be your call if you saw an embryo of e.g. Nick Vujicic? Thumb up (birth) or thumb down (abort)? Would you make the right call? Nick himself wanted to kill himself at some point but eventually he became what he is today. Who ever really had the right to make that call for him?
To me it still seems as if you approve abortion at any time before the actual birth. And in any case, those pointless disputes about when is the last acceptable time for abortion are all equally hypocritical to me. After conception, it doesn't really matter when you kill. With conception that person was already put to existence. He/she was already coded (not by human will) and then a human decided to click abort and delete.
I have another solution here : Let understand what is the position of living and dying for everyone... My aim is to see every old person valid or not decide to die for the goodness of humanity.... Thus your question would be useless... Otherwise, your question depends on many factors : in which country you live, in which side you are... What is your own goal ?...
You still didn't answer my question. What makes the difference? What is the factor that makes an unborn child a valid target for convenient deletion and still doesn't make a quadriplegic or a terminally ill person?
Is it maybe different because we don't know whether this child wants to live or not regardless of possibly difficult conditions that await him or her? What would be your call if you saw an embryo of e.g. Nick Vujicic? Thumb up (birth) or thumb down (abort)? Would you make the right call? Nick himself wanted to kill himself at some point but eventually he became what he is today. Who ever really had the right to make that call for him?
Well, thank you. It is rather boring here usually.
And btw, the off topic was started by posts from Charles Hill.
And btw, the off topic was started by posts from Charles Hill.
I don't make any difference for my point fo view thus i really don't care who makes some differences... I don't see your point to make me answer a question i don't care...
And as far as i know i don't kill with abortion :-)
(edited)
And as far as i know i don't kill with abortion :-)
(edited)
then a human decided to click abort and delete.
Yes, and it will go farther with the total control of coding of every human kind in the future...
Yes, and it will go farther with the total control of coding of every human kind in the future...
Well, your argument was that because the unborn's life totally depends on mother's body, this makes it valid for a mother to decide to remove it. Quadriplegics also totally depend on other people. If those people don't want to take care of them, they could also just let them die and thus improve the quality of their life as well. Do you support this logic also and, if not, why not?
I am asking this because I don't really see a big difference. I understand that you don't care about it but I am asking you to answer this question because I do care. It is really important to me to understand this.
I am asking this because I don't really see a big difference. I understand that you don't care about it but I am asking you to answer this question because I do care. It is really important to me to understand this.
I already answered but you did not read... I said that i would change to mind of evey human kind to think that every human become useless must die for the goodness of humanity.
That's then why i don't care that some societies take care of quadriplegics ad some others not.
If i try to understand their logic, i'd say that the handicaped person is conscious of his condition and talk about it with someone else which give culpability to the community to let him die as many people on earth are afraid of death. And seeing other in that condition would remind us the same possible condition that would happen and they would like other help them back too... For the same group of people who are for abortion, i'd say they see the embryo not as a conscious and not a comminucative person to know what he (she) wants...
But i really don't know why you ask to thnik about other opinions i don't really know... It is just presumptions... Nothing else... Nothing true in it
That's then why i don't care that some societies take care of quadriplegics ad some others not.
If i try to understand their logic, i'd say that the handicaped person is conscious of his condition and talk about it with someone else which give culpability to the community to let him die as many people on earth are afraid of death. And seeing other in that condition would remind us the same possible condition that would happen and they would like other help them back too... For the same group of people who are for abortion, i'd say they see the embryo not as a conscious and not a comminucative person to know what he (she) wants...
But i really don't know why you ask to thnik about other opinions i don't really know... It is just presumptions... Nothing else... Nothing true in it
Ok, thanx. It's more clear now. I still don't understand completely what is your own personal view about it but I appreciate your effort.
As soon as I saw 30+ new postings in this topic, I knew Sasha has joined the conversation :p
And you were right. Some always have the need to defend the ridiculousness :/
And you were right. Some always have the need to defend the ridiculousness :/
Well, your argument was that because the unborn's life totally depends on mother's body, this makes it valid for a mother to decide to remove it.
The unborn is a part of his mother body, she can do anything she likes with it
I thik this is a fact, not an opinion. The word "valid" has no sense at all..
you can make rules against it, with the only result that abortion will be done in secret and will become more risky for womans.
I think an unborn has no rights (and this is quite obvious if you think what a "right" is..). So the woman is naturally allowed to decide whatever she likes, putting any moralism about it is something very intrusive in other people's life.
The unborn is a part of his mother body, she can do anything she likes with it
I thik this is a fact, not an opinion. The word "valid" has no sense at all..
you can make rules against it, with the only result that abortion will be done in secret and will become more risky for womans.
I think an unborn has no rights (and this is quite obvious if you think what a "right" is..). So the woman is naturally allowed to decide whatever she likes, putting any moralism about it is something very intrusive in other people's life.
putting any moralism about it is something very intrusive in other people's life.
Unborn babies are also other people. Their only problem is that they get in the way of voters.
Unborn babies are also other people. Their only problem is that they get in the way of voters.
When you go this path to the end, you can claim that protected sex is also killing, because if it wasn't protected then most probably it would end up with a new baby, that didn't choose to end up in a condom.
"If men could give birth to a baby, the abortion would be a sacrament."
Florence Kennedy.
Florence Kennedy.
This is a moral grey area, but imo, abortion is not killing people, as it is only the removal of a couple of human cells. It is like you would cut out a piece of your arm. You cannot say that every cell in your body has its own rights.
Normally, it's only after 3 months of pregnancy that one can really speak of a little human being. Upto that point you cannot speak of a human being and therefore, upto that point abortion should be possible, imo.
Normally, it's only after 3 months of pregnancy that one can really speak of a little human being. Upto that point you cannot speak of a human being and therefore, upto that point abortion should be possible, imo.