As if the girl hadn't gone through enough, then they killed her child.
- Thread starter Deadpool
- Start date
So your reasoning here is that since it is doubtful that the child will be raised properly, therefore we should kill it. Why is this the reasonable solution?
You are ignoring the core issue. How is getting pregnant EVERYTIME when it is unwanted the right decision? Granted that this particular case is rape, but as I said in a previous post, if the unwanted births were all results of rape, there wouldn't be an issue. The number of unwanted births would decrease significantly, and we could create special programs to help such children and their mothers.
You are ignoring the core issue. How is getting pregnant EVERYTIME when it is unwanted the right decision? Granted that this particular case is rape, but as I said in a previous post, if the unwanted births were all results of rape, there wouldn't be an issue. The number of unwanted births would decrease significantly, and we could create special programs to help such children and their mothers.
Why is speculating to condone killing a child in the womb more acceptable than speculating to condone killing a child outside of the womb? We could speculate right now that children born in ghettos are not likely of being positive contributors to society, therefore we should kill them now. Is this okay for you? We'll even use real events and occurrences to form this conclusion.
In regard to our killing in other capacities, what you are basically saying is that since we kill by drunk driving or drugs (or in any other capacity), therefore it should be fine to kill babies in the womb. It should be obvious why this simply bad reasoning.
In regard to our killing in other capacities, what you are basically saying is that since we kill by drunk driving or drugs (or in any other capacity), therefore it should be fine to kill babies in the womb. It should be obvious why this simply bad reasoning.
The reasoning is there. They are living, that is the status quo. They should continue to live, there is no questioning "why?" Why should we allow you to continue living? Why should we allow anyone to continue living? Your answer lies therein. If in any circumstance you are pro-abortion, that means that you want to change the status quo. You have made it clear that you do approve of abortion, so on that basis I said you want to make a change. I am not getting defensive, I am simply responding to your question with the observation that your question presumes that I am required to answer it in order to justify my conclusions.
Who am I educating? Anyone with the brain to understand.
In what way am I educating? By pointing out that there is no excuse to justify killing in this case. Certainly everyone has the right to defend themselves, but you wouldn't throw your child in front of oncoming traffic to save yourself. On the contrary, you'd probably be more likely to jump in front of oncoming traffic to save your child. Similarly, there are some cases where the child in the womb may threaten the well-being of the mother, but there is no legitimate difference between inside or outside the womb. In both cases, there is a human life involved. If you would sacrifice your own life to save your child outside the womb, why wouldn't you do it when the child is inside the womb? So there is an inconsistency here because knowledge is lacking. People simply form stronger bodily attachments and that is why the child in the womb isn't considered as important. But killing inside the womb is no different than killing outside the womb. So in the same line of logic why don't we justify killing birthed children?
So what people have been doing now is that they rubber-stamp "viable" at some point in fetal development. With this concoction people can rationalize abortion by claiming that it is not yet a human life. Just see the rascal tactics! Hitler would similarly consider Jews to not be human lives and therefore justify killing them as well. So there is no difference in analogy.
There are no legit arguments supporting abortion. I have not seen a single one. All I have seen is people debating from a legal standpoint. Just because some people decide that the fetus isn't viable until a certain point does not mean that this is actually true. Nor can they cannot show this scientifically.
In what way am I educating? By pointing out that there is no excuse to justify killing in this case. Certainly everyone has the right to defend themselves, but you wouldn't throw your child in front of oncoming traffic to save yourself. On the contrary, you'd probably be more likely to jump in front of oncoming traffic to save your child. Similarly, there are some cases where the child in the womb may threaten the well-being of the mother, but there is no legitimate difference between inside or outside the womb. In both cases, there is a human life involved. If you would sacrifice your own life to save your child outside the womb, why wouldn't you do it when the child is inside the womb? So there is an inconsistency here because knowledge is lacking. People simply form stronger bodily attachments and that is why the child in the womb isn't considered as important. But killing inside the womb is no different than killing outside the womb. So in the same line of logic why don't we justify killing birthed children?
So what people have been doing now is that they rubber-stamp "viable" at some point in fetal development. With this concoction people can rationalize abortion by claiming that it is not yet a human life. Just see the rascal tactics! Hitler would similarly consider Jews to not be human lives and therefore justify killing them as well. So there is no difference in analogy.
There are no legit arguments supporting abortion. I have not seen a single one. All I have seen is people debating from a legal standpoint. Just because some people decide that the fetus isn't viable until a certain point does not mean that this is actually true. Nor can they cannot show this scientifically.