(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 05:19 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Usernoname
User Post
Usernoname
Newcomer


 





Since: 04-23-06

Last post: 6207 days
Last view: 6207 days
Posted on 04-23-06 06:47 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
A fetus's right to live does not give it the privilege to use another human body against their will. That would be giving the fetus a right above what born human beings have. It would be giving a fetus the right to use a born adult's body as a means for his/her survival! Replace the word fetus by adult in the last phrase and notice how insane that sounds?

Analogy: Let's say your cousin is dying and needs something from your body, a kidney. The odds are shown low and he needs one from his family. He wants you to go do a check up to see if it matches with his. Does your cousin have the right to take a kidney from you if he needs it to survive? Withouth your permission? No, it's your body you have no obligation to donate anything; even to save a life.

The ideal would be that the fetus could be able to live on it's own even if removed from the body of the mother, but we all know that's not the case in our current world. So as long as the embryos and fetuses are stuck upon relying on another's body to grow into a potential human being, they have no right equal to that of a mother or a born human being.
Usernoname
Newcomer


 





Since: 04-23-06

Last post: 6207 days
Last view: 6207 days
Posted on 04-23-06 09:00 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
Once that child has been born, his parents are lawfully obliged to expend their own personal resources to preserve its life. A parent who does not feed, clothe, and otherwise care for his child is one that will be prosecuted as a criminial. Why is the mother not bound by that same obligation before the child is born?


That child, once born, is free from the physical bondage it depended on to live and that prevented it from being free to be taken care by anyone else. Take that child and leave it to the care of someone else and it will be fine; unlike before, there isn't that unique person who the baby needs to survive.

Once the baby is born, if the parents decide they don't want the baby, they can always give the baby up for adoption. I doubt a woman would go through labor, have the baby and just leave it there to die. That sort of thing only happened when abortion was made illegal.
Usernoname
Newcomer


 





Since: 04-23-06

Last post: 6207 days
Last view: 6207 days
Posted on 04-23-06 09:38 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
Whether it is to be done by the biological mother or not, a child has the lawfully enforced right to be cared for. Likewise, a fetus should have that right to be taken care of, because it is a being that is incapable of doing so itself. Just because the biological mother is the only one capable of doing so doesn't diminish that child's right.


Mind pointing out this law?

A baby can be left at a hospital and it will be taken care of. A fetus needs to stay in a womans body for 9 months. There's a difference. It does diminish that child's rights because it attacks HER rights to her body. Just like someone holding a loaded gun in a persons face loses some rights by attacking the victims rights.


Originally posted by Silvershield
Abortion has been legal in American for a long time, and the story of a child thrown in a dumpster and left to die is still frequent enough to contend with your statement.


Frequent enough? It surely isn't the same magnitude it was back then.
Usernoname
Newcomer


 





Since: 04-23-06

Last post: 6207 days
Last view: 6207 days
Posted on 04-24-06 11:37 PM, in Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
But, as she was the one who initiated the situation (by involving herself in a sexual act), it is her rights that should be diminished, not those of the child who is innocent of any wrongdoing. Just like that person holding the gun, the woman is the one who brought about the scenario that would call for one party's rights to be diminished, which makes her the party whose rights are vulnerable.


That's assuming she willingly involved herself in a sexual act. There is that famous rape scenario usually involved in the abortion debate. That does not mean I'm only for abortion in the case of rape. Until there is that perfect condom or perfect pill I think abortion should be an option for those who protected themselves. To continue with the previous scenario; it's like someone holding loaded gun in a persons face, that person being protected by a bulletproof shield with a 99% chance of breaking. That's just being plain unlucky.

Originally posted by Silvershield
Frequent enough meaning, it still happens. Your phrasing suggested that it is no longer a crime that is ever commited, period.


You're right I did use the word only; it is my mistake. It wasn't meant to be taken that way.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Usernoname


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.009 seconds; used 354.27 kB (max 417.23 kB)