Abortion and the Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Cazzo, Jul 18, 2008.

?

I am :

  1. For abortion and for the death penalty.

    16 vote(s)
    41.0%
  2. Against abortion and against the death penalty.

    3 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Against abortion and for the death penalty.

    11 vote(s)
    28.2%
  4. For abortion and against the death penalty.

    8 vote(s)
    20.5%
  5. Not sure.

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  1. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Most abortions happen in the first few weeks. Any that happen after 12 weeks is hard for a woman who has been carrying it all that time. It is down to the woman concerned and not some crank in a frock who lies that god is against it. There is nothing in the bible against it.

    Many people who kill go on to kill again. So far, no one who has been executed has ever killed again. It costs a fortune to keep people in jail for decades.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Driving or being a passenger in a car SEVERELY increases the chances of both the mother and the foetus dying. Should this be illegal?
    Women over 35 are more likely to miscarry? are they, therefore, more likely to be killers? Should they be restricted from getting pregnant?
    Women with diabetes?
    Women with prior miscarriages? (should these women be banned from pregnancy? If the feotus is to be considered 'the same as a human being' why does it seem odd to restrict women who have had miscarriages - and are therefore likely to repeat this - from getting pregnant and putting a 'child' in harm's way?)
    Should fathers over 45 be denied the right to procreate since this is a factor in miscarriage?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    etopic pregnancies generally loose them anyway, and they will then remove the baby, if a 13yr old wants to go out and get pregnant then she should be treated like a adult, and has for rape victims, and i am not trieing to belittle them at all, then they shoudl consider adoption,
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Actively killing a child is more than a probability, don't you think? Abortion cannot be compared to a car drive or a late pregnancy or a older parent or a woman with an inability to carry through a pregnancy. Those are probabilities. Abortion results in certain death. Fetal alcohol syndrome is real. Heroin addiction leads to addicted babies.
     
  8. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Well, you mentioned smoking, earlier which is probabilities.
    Fetal alcohol syndrome is also probabilities.
    Further the parents in the categories I mentioned are increasing the chances that a child will die.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Smoking and fetal alcohol syndrome are not probabilities. Just a question of degree. Its like saying chopping off a childs arm is not fatal, so abortion is fine, cos its a lot of chopping off.
     
  10. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    This is incorrect. You have children from parents who drank alcohol who have no symptoms and cannot be distinguished from the rest of the population.
    The same can be said for the children of mothers who smoked.
    In the cases I mentioned those parents - women with miscarriages, older men - are selfishly putting a soul-child in a dangerous situation where that foetus may die a painful death. Why are they not culpable in your belief system? Should they not leave childbearing to those with safer wombs and better sperm?
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Link please? Any statistics?
    Sure, I have no objection. Its called surrogacy and sperm banking :shrug:
     
  12. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Actually SAM the burden of proof is on you. You raised the issue and are making the claim that the issue with smoking and alcohol and smoking are not issues of probability, that all babies are damaged. You provide the links that prove that it is not an issue of probability.
    This made no sense. These are options - for some - but do not address the problem of these, essentially, bad parents who will not care properly for the child in the womb. They increase the chances of damage and death to these unborn children just like smokers and drinkers do.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    As I said, its a question of degree. There is plenty of evidence available:

    Smoking:

    Link

    Alcohol:
    Link

    Now perhaps you could provide evidence showing smoking and alcohol consumption is not teratogenic?


    From what I see, its very simple. Is it alright for a woman to share her cigarette or drink with a baby? I don't think so, and I don't see why an exception should be made for the fetus.


    Sure, and I agreed with you and showed that there are options available. Like surrogacy, sperm banks and adoption.
     
  14. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I'll go you one better. Studies show that the grandmother's smoking can have ill effects on her daughter's children via the eggs, already present in her daughter while she, the grandmother, is pregant. I am hardly contesting that smoking and alcohol consumption are teratogenic. I still think we are dealing in probabilities of damage. Older fathers, again, increase the risk of fetal - I'll go for another spelling - death.


    So parents in the categories I mentioned earlier should be only allowed to have children via these methods?
     
  15. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    I have come to realized that to discuss abortion with atheists is completely useless.
    They have no fear whatsoever to play God because they don't believe in one. They
    think that making children is like making pie: they prepare the materials, they cook
    themselves, hence they can decide what to do with it, either to eat it or throw it.
    No one consider that children have spirit, and the spirit isn't made by them or belong
    to them, they are entrusted goods which are belong to Gods. Good luck in playing God.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Its not a probability when its a question of degree. Unless you have studies showing otherwise.

    Sure, if it can be proved that its teratogenic. After all, here we are dealing with probabilities.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's a little more nuanced than that though, but no we don't believe in spirits or God.
    What about when you need an operation ? Do the doctors play God ?
     
  18. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I think it's simple: it's a matter of innocence. Barbaric criminals deserve barbaric punishments. However, babies are innocent, and therefore, they do not deserve to die for the irresponsbility or inability of their parents. If the parent truly does not care to raise the child, they can put it up for adoption, but killing it is unacceptable.

    With that reasoning, it is entirely justifiable killing babies so long as they're in the womb. What if YOU were aborted? What if white supremacist groups thought it was "ok" to kill babies in the womb since they're "not people yet"?
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I would have no problem with it if I was aborted.. lol
    How could I, I would be dead.
     
  20. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Not you, just people in general

    Well, of course, but I mean, it just isn't right to rob a potential person of their life, after it's been activated. It isn't fair. How do we know we haven't aborted the next genius?
     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    We don't..
    Is it fair to the millions of sperms cells when you masturbate ? Or.. imagine I asked a hypothetical person

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    But those cells never actually began the development process. After conception, it's began, and that is a person, a person that will grow and experience, and killing it then, even if it isn't a full person yet, isn't fair.
    Also, no no, I'm a guy, every guy does

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well, the sperm cell isn't a full person either, it's halve it's chromosomes short

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Either way, they are living things and they are human.
     

Share This Page