Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard
Yay, no election! 
But... I will just touch on something that I hear quite often - that it's because the future life – human or child - will be lost. The potential life.
People who hold this argument need to be reminded that the same future life could well have been lost had contraception been used, or (perhaps more appropriately for them) had abstinence been practised at that crucial moment in time. It seems to me one of those crazy philosophical arguments where it's almost impossible to find consistency. Unless the parents are having sex 24/7, then they're denying a future life - many future lives in fact. Even by having Child X, they're denying life to potential twins Y and Z. The argument that we shouldn't deny a future life it's child/adulthood seems to me to rest on incredibly shaky ground. Even if by some incredible feat, we turned into 24/7 baby-making machines, the resulting overpopulation would end up denying life - and quality of life - to many. |
i am pro-life. unlike many christians who take it to extremes, i do not believe that using condoms is wrong, or that we should have as many children as possible to expand the human race with 20 little bible thumpers running around the house. to me, the issue is "do you value a human life?" to me, once a child is concieved, it is a person. before that, it's up to the individual because it's their sperm and eggs.
to deny that an embryo is a person yet is absurd, especially because many of the same people are saying "How stupid are you that you don't believe global warming is happening?" the two things are so obvious that you'd have to be a complete idiot or in denial to not believe them. "but!" some say, "an embryo can't feel anything yet, so it's okay to kill them!". a baby can't speak or stand up or move around on its own yet, either, so i guess it's okay to kill them too! stating that abortion is okay simply because the baby in utero is not fully developed is a flawed argument from the get-go. it's like saying that a baby is not fully developed, therefore dumping them in a garbage can is perfectly OK.
what about "it depends on the mother to survive and cannot survive out of the uterus"? a born baby depends on the mother (ok, a parent) to survive and would die without one. but what about surrogate mothers? those aren't their babies in them, so is it still her body? not really. so the argument that a baby is an innate part of the mother's body is silly.