Originally posted by mwm1331
Come on sminkey you are trying to say that not being born at all is better than being born to poor parents?
- No. That is a false comparison IMO and an irrelevant one that cannot be made.
I am saying that a mother's/families' choice not to have a birth is something different altogether.
Then again to be born a child in a famine zone in Africa and starve to death or to be born with AIDS, I don't know mwm.........would it be better to
have never been born, I can see that it might well have been.
You and I both know that is bull#.
- In those terms, yes, I'd say it is.
The trouble is (for your side of the debate) those terms are IMO fatuous and merely rhetorical word-play.
As for not doing it, would you say the same about rape?
I mean after all what right do we have to say a man can not get his jolles by raping women? Dont agree with it then dont do it, but dont you dare
force your quaint morality on anyone else.
- I'd have thought the point was pretty clear - you even unwittingly make it here - about the differences between forcing your views on the birthed
Once again I'm sorry to say I see this as mere rhetorical dancing.
To cite something along the lines of rape as if similar and relevant is nothing but ridiculous IMO.
Rape involves live conscious people and is hardly a matter of free choice for all concerned.
You say its only a potential life, but that potential is alive, it may or may not be consious, but it is alive.
- I have not disputed this, ever; have I?
Are you about to tell me 'all life is sacred'?
Cos that point of view I have much respect for, even if I personally do not see it's application in all cases in the world as always practical.
Tell me do you feel that those who are brain dead should be killed as well? Afterall they're no longer consious.
- Er, life support is routinely withdrawn from those showing 'brain death' the world over everyday.
......and yes, I can see the sense of that.
......and yes, I have read the stories of thehandful that 'came back' too.
See the simple fact is a fetus s human and alive. It is human life.
- Once again I am not and have not been disputing this.
But I am saying it is an undeveloped life and that IMO the destruction of the undeveloped - potential - life is not the same as murdering a born alive
I suspect you use the "potential life" argument becuase in your heart you know what you are supporting is murder, pure and simple.
Rationilise it all you want but its murder. It is the intentional premeditated killing of a living breathing human being.
- No. I'm sorry but for the reasons given before I profoundly disagree.
I - like most 'pro-choice' people - see nothing especially 'good' about abortion, it is something I imagine always to be regretted and hardly
something anyone (sane) would undertake happily.
But the alternative (banning abortion) I see as worse though. Why? Because we can look back not that long ago and see what happened when that was the
situation. I do not see that time as 'better'.
To say that a womans abillity not to be inconvienced by the results of her own actions trumps that of another living humans to live is
- Like I said mwm I do not see it in those terms.
Yu say that in some situations aborton s the least worst outcome, maybe for the mother, but not for her child.
- In this circumstance I do not see the foetus as a child (yet).
It's destruction is not the same as murdering a child as far as I am concerned, sorry but IMO it just isn't.
There s no circunstance in whch abortion is better than any other course of action for that fetus, on that I think we can both agree at
- Well with some exceptions of course, I would not disagree with that.
(the exceptions being tragic children born to a life of grotesque suffering and agony and/or any number of congenital horrors)