Your views in this case are possibly warped from inexperience - I would argue that such a paternal instinct is an inbuilt one, to have the evolutionary instinct to protect one's young - you may not have triggered that instinct yet. I am sure when human beings were camped out in caves it wasn't an ideal situation to raise one's young. In fact I'm sure the vast majority of the world's population who live below our own western poverty line are in far from ideal situations to raise their young - should we abort the third world? why force the third world to grow up in a situation that is not ideal for them? Does the father not have a say? does the act of carrying the baby give you every right over that baby? that baby can not survive outside the womb without the mother looking after it's every need - we imprison people for cruelty if they do not look after their babies - does this form of cruelty only apply outside the womb? One of my best friends grew up in an orphanage - I'm sure he'd argue there is plenty of point. Why don't we destroy them after we have discovered they are ******ed instead of taking precautionary measures? At what point do you believe we should bestow humanity on this lump of organs then? It's built into us at an evolutionary level to procreate and look out for each other. We also have laws against murder for very practical reasons. Having children is a privilege and a responsibility. As much as children being born into wrong circumstances can cause us all sorts of annoying social issues it still doesn't make it morally correct to allow us to destroy them as a matter of pure convenience. I'm not against abortion in all cases but I am pretty sure I am against it on a casual basis. Choosing to abort a baby should not be an easy choice, it should wrangle in your mind that it's maybe not morally correct to do this thing before you do it - it should be the very last choice you make after exploring all other options. What we have though is lunch time abortions; abortions which barely interfere with your life, another form of contraception. I'm a realist in the sense I understand and accept that a fertilised egg does not become a baby at the moment of conception - but I also understand that twenty-something weeks later it is a viable living human if placed outside the womb. We have to bestow humanity onto this clump of cells at some point in between - for me 24 weeks is far too late.
Did he really report my post yesterday? Is that the only one he's reported? In the name of transparancy of course.
True but that 'fertilised egg' can't think, isn't self-concious etc...You're saying that life beings at fertilisation, whereas my point is that humans are only people once they've developed the ability to speak/talk/interact/... Let me make this clear, I'm not for abortion because I like the idea of things dieing, I'm still a vegetarian for a reason, but there are too many kids in this country that born in ****ed up circumstances. Having children is a serious decision, if not the most important decision of a person's life, and bringing a new person into the world shouldn't be forced on anyone by law. Abortion is not a way of replacing contraception and (I'm guessing) is not an easy choice for anyone to make, but it's an important way of ensuring we don't see kids popping up everywhere in unsuitable conditions.
Babies can't interact till they're a couple of months old. They're still people though. Some disabled people don't talk or interact, but they're still people. And I agree that are too many babies being born in the wrong circumstances, but I don't think termination is the answer. Unfortunately, abortion is an easy choice for some. I know a lad whose girlfriend has had 5 abortions in the last 3 years. All within a relationship, all with the same bloke.
In summation: Suicide - Yer a selfish cowardly prick that abandoned yer family. Assisted suicide - Yer family are helping to give you a way out of an impossible situation, thereby freeing yourself and your family. Abortion - who gives a ****. I hate weans. Additionally, most people should be banned from having them. Pregnancy should be licensed or summat. Thread ended.
I've been wanting to have kids for the last year or 2, I love the idea of being a Dad. But if tomorrow the girl I'm seeing told me she's pregnant, I wouldn't want to be a Dad now, as I'm in ****loads of debt and my life is not suitable for fatherhood. I'm not saying to have to be rich or own a house to have kids, just that if the time's not right there's no point. That's a wild leap onto a completely different subject. We're talking about abortions in western society here (see your career example). Also those parents want those children, whereas we're talking about parents that don't want to be parents at this point in time. The father can give his opinion, but for unplanned pregnancies that result from one-night stands I don't think he should have any right to force a woman to have his kid. I'm all for adoption, but from my point of view that's an even more ****ed up decision that abortion. Why have a kid in the first place if you're going to give it up for adoption? I can think of a few people on here that should be aborted... When it can talk? When it can think? When it's basically not as intelligent as a rabbit? The 'procreate' bit? Maybe. Still doesn't explain why couples choose to not have kids. The 'look out for each other' bit? Nope. Humans only help each other to prolong their own existence and improve their lives. That's why people are happy to go to war. Yet again you're projecting human consciousness on foetuses (can't be arsed to google the plural of it). Having studied the development of intelligence in kids at Uni, without language you can't think, so kids are not conscious of their own existence (in a philosophical way) until they have developed the ability to form thoughts. I'm not talking about laughing or crying here. Morally correct? Whose morals? I'd be surprised if many abortions are seen as an alternative to contraception. Morning after pill? Maybe. But the time limit on using it is short, so there will be ****all there to kill. Lunch-time abortions? You been talking to those crazy peeps outside churches with aborted foetus posters? Define 'human'. If you mean person, then no. If you mean a living creature, then yes, but the only thing that links it to us is DNA, not the workings of a brain. It's like the whole cloning argument. One of my best mates died when I was 21, I'd love to be able to clone him and bring him back, but unfortunately it's the mind of a person that makes them unique, the body is only there to keep the brain alive (and allow us to procreate).
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (6 members and 1 guests) Jip Jaap Stam, Glesgabhoy67, MalteseMick, RebelBhoy, The General, Toby. Who are you, The General?
Ah christ Toby, you've dragged the conversation into about 5 different areas which can branch out into 10 pages on their own. I'll get to them at some point, but in the mean time I''d suggest no one let Toby babysit unless your kid can talk.
A baby is only a person if you project human qualities on it. They have no experience of being alive, which is what makes us all people. They can't think as they have no language. It doesn't mean it won't turn into a 'real' person one day, but at the start they're just a dribbling ****ting lump that has an incredible capacity to learn. So what is the answer if abortion isn't? Time machines? Adoption? As stated in my previous post (and I'm not a mother/parent/...), from my point of view, giving up a child that you've looked at and seen alive would be incredibly more ****ed than aborting something that has no capacity to even know it's alive? The bold bit is the sort of stuff the Daily Mail comes out with. 'I've seen this thing happen, so it must happen all the time everywhere constantly' <tinfoilhat>.
I like kids, they're funny. We're talking about aborting a foetus that isn't aware of it's existence, which is the decision of one or both of the parents. I'm not talking about killing babies that can't speak.
