If you looked at your own post you would see that you did say it, but from the context it appeared that you were being sarcastic, and I replied as such.
Okay, my mistake.
1) That was a typo, sorry. I meant to say "I could, but it wouldn't do any good for the debate."
2)....um how is that psychopathic exactly? It seems to me that you are trying to discredit my by declaring insanity or something.
It sounds psychopathic because you're admitting you'd tell a rape-victim she's being selfish and murderous when she's going through a traumatic situation. People like you make victims feel even worse than they already do.
Granted, she does have no loyalties to the person, but considering the fetus has her own DNA in it, I would say that accounts for something. Second, what are the 2 evils/choices we are contemplating in this situation?
Sharing DNA is a stupid reason to have loyalties to someone, in my opinion. I don't have any bad relatives (or, close ones), but plenty of people do. If you have abusive parents or a sibling who who became a serial killer, would you still show loyalty to them? And what about adoption, which you've been so adamantly defending? Are you saying adoptive parents love their kid less than biological parents love theirs?
Choice #1 Rape
Choice #2 Murder
In choice #1 the woman keeps living/existing but with (for the most part) temporary pain.
In choice #2 The random person gets wiped from existence.
Except I don't think it's murder because the fetus is not alive. Maybe in very late-term abortion, the arguments against which I'm more sympathetic (but still against, especially if the mother's life is in danger), but in early-stage pregnancy, the fetus has no real brain activity. Maybe it can feel pain (it's hard to prove such things with no significant brain activity), but again, so can cows, so that argument cannot hold up. The only argument you have left is that killing is wrong because the fetus will eventually become human, and (for the millionth time), so will a sperm. So stop masturbating if you want your argument to hold any ground at all.
And about it being akin to slavery. Slaying an innocent sentient(or soon-to-be sentient) to let another person "feel better" isn't? The slain is in a position where its fate is in the hands of someone else, who can chose to better its life to chose to end it. Granted the one in the position of decision making may not have asked to be there, but they still have to chose, and the choice is...life.....or death.
So, you're ignoring my analogy, huh? I'd like it if you responded to it, I really would. It's slavery because you're forcing a woman to use her body against her will, threatening legal action if she doesn't obey you. You said it yourself: the 'life' of a fetus is more important than a woman's liberty. It is my humble opinion that that is utter bullsh
it.
Ooookaaaay.....not sure how to respond......who cares, it's off topic anyways, moving along.
I mentioned it to show that you should have a spine. If a pro-choicer ever made you butthurt by saying that your biological mother had every right to abort you if she so chose, I'm telling you to get over it. Hell, I'll say it right now (if I hadn't already made it clear): Your biological mother should've had the right to abort you if she wanted to. I would be fine if you hadn't been born. Now, you can say the exact same thing to me, and I won't care. That's the point I was making.
No. But then again, I"m not in a position of power so I could fix that now am I?
Okay. So, since you're not in a position of power and the problem isn't going to be fixed any time soon, how about you start paying for every woman who wants to have an abortion's birth costs? That might make you a little less of an insensitive hypocrite. "Look, miss, we know you were raped, we know there's a very high chance of you dying if you have this baby, and we know you'll be forced to pay $20,000 in fees if you have the baby, but... YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE IT."
And yes, I guess I am telling the woman to SAVE A LIFE at a mild inconvenience compared to the years that the human she saved would have.
The trauma of pregancy and childbirth is a minor inconvenience now? That term must've changed definitions since I last heard it.
Re-stating:
3 years of pain (hell, lets make it 5)
5 years of pain = 78 years of life
^now tell me what isn't morally acceptable with that equation.
Restating:
Fetus is not alive. Will be, but isn't yet, and needs outside help to become so (akin to sperm). Fetus can possibly feel pain (akin to cows). Check and mate.
I'd like to know if your 'argument' for forcing women to give up their own lives for a fetus falls along the same lines:
Woman: Has lived for 15-50 years and so only has 63-28 years left. Also has parents, possibly other children, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and friends who love her.
Fetus: Has 78 potential years left. Has no one who loves it and will probably be hated (even subconsciously) by all the woman's left-behind loved ones.
Because, I'll just confide something in you right now: If my mother was forced to give birth to a baby that killed her that she didn't want, unless she begged me not to on her death bed, I would probably go after that baby. Just sayin'.
Also, I'd like to know if this 'logic' also applies if the baby will be born with a serious mental condition. If the mother is intelligent, able-bodied and has dozens of loved ones, and the baby she's going to give birth to is going to be blind, deaf, unable to move and seriously mentally challenged, does your 'logic' still apply?
No my mother didn't want me, but she understood that it was selfish to simply kill me, so she gave me to someone who wanted me. Now odds are, she didn't get pregnant and later decide "I don't feel like raising a child at this point in my life" (not saying its impossible). The odds are that the pregnancy was an accident. Contraceptives don't work 100% of the time so it was unpredictable.
Right. So women shouldn't be allowed to have sex at all unless they want to be forced to carry a non-sentient, non-sapient fetus to term. I think they do something similar to that in Ireland, and, for some odd reason, people are getting very tissy about it and forcing the government to change the law. I wonder why that is...
Now a rape is the same way, unpredictable.
NO IT FREAKING ISN'T. The woman did not CHOOSE to have sex if she was raped. That's the DEFINITION of 'rape.'
Now my mother had a choice- Save a life? Doom a life?
You actually said the keyword yourself: Your mother CHOSE to give you life. She wasn't forced into it. I, personally, would be heartbroken if I found out my mother had been FORCED to have me, rather than choosing to do so. I'd still want to be alive, sure, but I wouldn't have had any objections against her if she'd wanted to abort me as a fetus, but couldn't because ignorant bigots stripped her of her liberty.
Thankfully for me she chose the former.
REALLY trying hard not to make a terrible, insensitive, out-of-taste joke here...
Now with the offspring of a rape victim, the person that would develop from said intercourse has an opportunity at freaking LIFE, what right does the woman have to doom a life?
Please don't EVER refer to rape as 'intercourse' again. As for what 'rights' the woman has to not use her own body as a temple for something she doesn't want, I guess, if you don't care about basic human rights, she has none. As I've said countless times, a fetus is pretty much the same thing as a sperm. The woman is under no obligation to use her body in such a way if she doesn't want to, and there should definitely be no moronic laws in place to strip her of her rights. Again, countries that DO do that (like Ireland) are changing because people are sick of it.
Yes, I believe that killing a human because it is sentient and self-aware is wrong as well, but i also believe in saving something that will eventually become sentient and self-aware, as is the next logical step.
So, wouldn't it make more sense to let the woman abort, if it raised her chance to live by even 5%? If she doesn't have the abortion, she dies, 100%. But if she does have the abortion, there's a 5% chance she won't die. Would you REALLY take away the woman's choice to LIVE? Asking her to give up her liberty is one thing, but you said you'd be for a woman giving up her LIFE if the fetus had more of a chance to live than she did. That's disgusting.
A)If a sperm never fuses, it will never live.
B)If a fused sperm-egg never has access to a woman's womb, it will never live.
Now, if a sperm never fuses with the egg it will never live, so technically it can't be considered alive until it meets those conditions (If it never meets those it will never live, simple logic).
Now with the fused egg-sperm. the second it fuses, it already is in the woman's womb and starts growing immediately afterwards.
So lets put it this way:
Sperm (alone will never live alone)
Egg (will never live alone)
Egg-Sperm fusion (will never live without the woman's womb)
Now, unless we are getting into cloning and the like, all Sperm-Egg fusions are already in the woman's womb and start growing the instant they join (because, they already are in the woman's womb).
So, if a sperm and egg fused that were not already in a woman's womb, then yes, they would never live, so letting them die off wouldnt be the same as killing a sperm-egg fusion that had already started growing inside the womb.
We're not going to agree here, but I still say you're wrong. Your argument against 'killing' a fetus is that it will eventually become human and it's growing. So what? It still can't grow without outside help, just like a sperm. If it's taken out of the mother's womb, it will die. It is NOT an independent life-form.
...
Okay, so you're saying you'd be for forcing the woman to swap a 99% chance to live (I doubt it's even that low, especially in early-term abortion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) for a 35% chance (or lower) to live, for the sake of a fetus? Are you REALLY saying that?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html
According to this, there are 21 pregnancy related deaths per 100,000 children born in the US (most of which could have been avoided if they had a healthier lifestyle, and almost all are unpredictable). You cant predict which pregnant woman will die, be it the one that was raped, or the one that actually wanted a child. But the that a raped woman will actually GET PREGNANT are about
5%.
So combine the 5% of a rape ending up in pregnancy with the fact that under 1% of childbirths end up in death for the mother, the odds for that are extremely slim.[/URL]
Statistics like this wouldn't bother me so much if you pro-life people actually gave women a choice in matters of rape and if their lives were in danger. I'm still for letting the woman choose in any situation, but I can kind of respect the opinion of someone who says a woman who chooses to have sex should accept the consequences of childbirth, even if I don't agree with it. What I CANNOT respect is someone telling a woman to give up her liberty, or even her LIFE, when she was raped. I can also never accept forcing ANY woman to put their life on the line and risk childbirth when it has a higher chance of killing them than abortion. That is just sick.
So you pro-choice stance, is based on the rights of under .01% of people in the US, while saying it is acceptable to end lives by abortion.
This site states that over a mission abortions take place each year, you are willing to ends missions of lives for the rights of under .01% of the population in the US.
No babies die every year from abortions, because fetuses are not babies, but okay. 'Missions for lives?' What a joke. People who protest outside an abortion clinic, calling women who are going through emotional trauma and exercising their basic liberties as human beings 'sl
uts' and 'wh
ores' are not people on a mission. People trying to pass laws (that will never be passed, BTW, as long as people are willing to fight for their freedom), trying to take away a woman's choice, or in some cases (if you have your way) her LIFE, are a
ssholes, plain and simple. If you don't like abortion, fine. No one's forcing you to have one. But if a woman wants to get an abortion, suck out a non-sentient, non-sapient, un-self-aware fetus - whether it's because she was raped, if she might die if she keeps it, if she was having responsible sex and got pregnant accidentally, or even if she was a careless idiot and is using abortion to get out of going through the pain and traumas (and EXPENSE, if she's in America) of childbirth - that's none of your damn business.
And I'm the one who is "a truly a disgusting excuse for a human being."?
You are telling women to GIVE UP THEIR LIVES for something that is not self-aware, so YES.
I just wanted to add that, most childbirth related deaths take place AT CHILDBIRTH, and we have already established that at that point, the baby is sentient and has rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/u...und-guilty-of-murder.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It may be sentient, but it's not sapient, self-aware or intelligent. Do you know how many young babies die because they literally roll onto their faces and can't right themselves again, thus suffocating? Even cats and dogs are more intelligent than that. The only reason I'm against killing babies but not fetuses is because the babies, as I said, are not draining resources from a womb. If they are causing someone distress, they can be passed to someone else quite easily. You cannot do that with a fetus. If you could, this wouldn't even be an issue (except for religious extremists, but no one ever listens to them anyway).
Also, this isn't directed at ansem the wise, but to everyone who keeps saying abortion should be illegal because it's dangerous for the woman's health: Stop lying. We know you're only against abortion because you care about the fetus (or 'baby,' as some of you inaccurately insist upon calling it). Stop trying to pretend you're pro-life because you care about the woman's life; you're pro-life because you care about the fetus. That's fine (it's what we're here to debate, after all), but be HONEST about it, instead of trying to pretend you're suddenly all concerned for the mother. Seriously, it's almost as bad as
this disgusting woman trying to get abortion in the case of rape banned because she claims the babies, if they're born, can be used to find the rapist. I don't know what science class that moron went to, incidentally. It certainly wasn't one set in 'reality.'