Again, it seems like a cowardly position. How do you expect to teach a person, or assume a person must assume its responsibilities if it doesn't attend to that? Besides, what if one of the sides opposes?
Also, adoption.
Ooo, just retorted to Dr. Manhattan there. 2 million sperm, only one (or two, or several, give or take) gets the "lucky" prize. How are you going to expect having any kind of "sexual responsibility" if you are eliminating the one reason why it exists anyways?Quote:
Birth is not a miracle, it is not special.. no more than you squeezing a turd out of your ass while squating over a toilet bowl. its a genetic reaction, get over it.
World Vision. Or adoption, or mostly contributing to end that trouble. You can't peg the idea of "don't bring children into the world if you don't want them" on people that don't have that choice, that wish to have a family but are poor enough to be unable to do so.Quote:
We, humans are a virus with shoes. We should look after the millions of hungry/starving/homeless people/children already in the world. Instead of crying and moaning over the death of an unwanted sperm :shake:
Odd that you didn't advocate for self-extermination, Agent Smith.
Lawl, disclaimer. Thing is; just how early can a sperm-embedded ovum be considered an embryo, or a living person? You can argue that while on the ovum, or before the blastocyte period, but after...well, it's not as easy as taking it as a joke.Quote:
My opinion however only covers the early stages of pregnancy, if it has a head/arms/legs then yeah i oppose. Little teeny weeny not aware of its own consciousness do whatever ya like :cool:
Then why not go through contraceptives. Heck, why think of sex...?Quote:
I'm a realist, if a mother and father decide its not a good time to have a baby as it could drasiticaly finacially cripple the family...
Why think about sex, either. It's like buying a puppy because it's cute, but ditching it because it turned into an ugly dog. It's lack of foresight. I can't stop those who don't have it, but makes sense to at least think about it before actually doing it...Quote:
[...]or if they know they wont be good parents[...]
I think I gave a good reason why a mother should have the child. Call it idealism, if you like. Surely beats being a cynic for anything but defending against world idiocy.Quote:
[...]or if its a baby created through the act of rape[...]
So you'll allow abortion over a silly excuse like that? Now that's sillier...talk about being realist...Quote:
or if someone was in a swimming pool and got unlucky.
You could have gone with each and every one of them. Not everyone will consider them solid and irrefutable reasons.Quote:
I could go on forever with the many reasons why it would be best for a child not to be born.
What about single mothers? Responsible single mothers. Or single fathers, as well. Responsible single fathers, that is. Which is what I assume that you speak about fatherless children (or motherless children, too); as well as the slight chance the child ends up trying to make it on its own.Quote:
Also id like to add that the absence of a father figure in the early stages of life, from the baby being born till between the age of 5 and 7 when the child begins to develop his super ego is not a good thing.. As many case studies show the absense of a father figure increases juvenile delinquency, and they turn into criminals and it goes on and on and on. Now im not saying all fatherless children are criminals, but most end up troubled.
What about uncles? Grandparents? Cousins? ...Godparents? (That's actually the reason why they exist; to take care of their godchildren if their parents are away, as well as teach them religion; though, that's mostly regional at best)
It IS an answer. Every little thing helps. Being a realist doesn't mean being a cynic for the lulz; it means being pretty much on the mid-point of idealism and cynicism.Quote:
Adoption you say? Take a look around the world at the children that face misery and starvation daily, i dont see anybody rushing to whisk them off to safety. This is an entirely different discussion in itself right there so im not gonna delve to far into adoption, just know its not the answer.
Be it through abstinence or contraceptives... It's mostly a point of showing just how important is sex, not the joke that gets shown through us by TV and the Internet and whatnot. That's mostly giving permission to those who think of sex as entertainment to be irresponsible. Not everyone does: oddly enough, most of the people who are Pro-Choice aren't promiscuous or irresponsible people; these are people who have careers and solid lines of thought. But they're defending a choice for others who don't even care for what reasons they defend abortion to rub it the wrong way with their irresponsibility.Quote:
The human mind is delicate and fragile, we need to start being careful with it. The world is over populated enough if ya ask me and we need to sort out this whole food/air ordeal, think of it in 100 years from now. The population will have drastically increased and if history has anything to show us, were gonna be in a whole world of shit, there are too many of us and we cause alot of damage to the world around us as a collective.
In short: don't defend abortion for the sex-crazed youth. Do it for something perhaps a bit more valuable, even if I and most others here don't agree with your position.
No. Bits of comedy aren't so bad every now and then. It surely lends to a less tense discussion ;)Quote:
But let me know, am i really being too harsh?
Hey deadbeing, you want a mass?Quote:
Would you rather see a child come into the world unwanted, to be abused, have a harsh life and grow up to be a rapist/child molester/ murder?
Or would you lean more towars the "unwanted tadpole not yet conscious child" be stricken from the record book before been even entered into it?
Catholic: nothing, but it would certainly had loved it while alive.
Christian: nothing, but it certainly wouldn't since it doesn't believe on it.
Nihilist: nothing, because it ceased to exist.
...kinda silly, but it's an empty question. It doesn't allow other options, nor it seems it will accept those who probably are capable of getting in. Not everybody will think like you, actually. Just like the three dead people; who can't answer jack but whom you might guess their answers.
Then I suggest we put a hold on sex as well. Only one of 2 million sperm gets the lucky shot; perhaps two or even three. The other 1,999,997? They also die. Or, when you have wet dreams.Quote:
If you think killing a "child" thats not even a month old and hasnt developed much at all is murder, then i suggest we put a hold on masterbation too. We shoot 2 million sperm each load, and if thats the case everybody on the earth is a hitler
Also...doesn't the brain and the ear organs develop the fastest?
Still, that's a pretty decent way to put it. If you think of sperm as a living organism, it makes you think the importance of sex.
Also, didn't you lost the discussion? Godwin's Law has been invoked, and the corollary is inflexible.
Isn't that the point of a debate? Making the other kneel before you and accept you're right? Perhaps it can open a bit of thought if the debate is left inconcluse (as it always does), but if you beat the other through the discussion, it's pretty evident that there's nothing to think about.
I'm not part of that large portion of people. Nor those who have accepted a faith. Nor those who believe on an idealist philosophy. I'd rather go for "a certain portion of the population", though. There's still no consensus, since there are still people that defend the need of a fetus to exist; there would be if there was no people to defend the other position. There's a rising trend, or perhaps a sizeable amount of support to the idea that fetus aren't living creatures. There's also a sizeable amount of support as to why they ARE. With normally solid positions, but still going through subjective bias and sentimentalisms (or don't tell me that appealing to the rage of rape isn't sentimentalism? The holier-than-thou aren't the only ones that use the weapon...)Quote:
I don't think that Phoenix, nor a large portion of people who take a similar stance, think they are murdering children here. An "unborn child" is just that, unborn. There is the consensus that "they" (which are not actually "they"), as a human being, have not yet come into existence. There is a sentimentality that is riddled throughout our language and it is easy to get lost in it, but it truly only expresses the POTENTIAL for life and not life itself. It is impossible to end what has not begun. That is why he feels that conception alone does not make it human and can likened to sperm, I believe.
It seems like a reasonable way to look at it, but think about what the person really believes. Can the sperm reproduce on it's own? Can the sperm feed? Can the sperm grow, outside of the ovum? I'm not sure whether the sperm has cellular respiration, but I can concede that one. It can be debatable right from the moment of conception to, perhaps, the moment where it is considered a multicellular organism. If you want to risk it and do it because you don't feel it's bad, I can't do more than give a warning (friendly or not). If you want to play safe, then stop it before it even begins. The way you like, actually. But after it happens? It's not going to be the easy choice.
I might sound idealist or perhaps a bit cliche'd, but it's a valuable point, just as Nix made the sperm point: how do you really know the impregnated ovum isn't already a living organism by that moment? Just as much as how do you know sperm isn't a living organism and not an organ of your body, or a bodily humor. 1,999,997 sperm unused doesn't seem like mass murder; more like working as intended. One ovum lost without fecundation isn't murder; it's working as intended. One impregnated ovum? Debatable. One blastocyte? Even more debatable. One fetus? I dunno, but that would seem like murder.