Quotations and Literature Forum

It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:30 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:52 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 1217
Location: Australia
YinYangSearcher wrote:
Much better class :wink:

GT- The point of the discussion is to acknowledge the fact that there are different circumstances, including the world in which the child will be born. But that's the question. THAT is the debate. are 3rd world living conditions where death seems a more suitable option for those who can (barely) function on their own, reason enough to end a potential life?

Yin


Yin, I find it hard to explain why I will not give an opinion on abortion, but I’ll try. To me generalities on this subject just cannot apply.

Unnil, it’s not because I’m neutral, I am clearly Pro-Choice.

But this doesn’t mean that I think abortion is acceptable in any old case that comes along, only that I don’t have the right to judge. There are too many different factors to consider in any one particular case or situation.

As you know I am not personally constrained by any religious rules, but I recognise that these religious rules have huge influence on moral and ethical decisions and are important to those that abide by them.

I could easily say, OK, that high flying career woman only wants an abortion so she can go on with her career, that shouldn’t be allowed. If that is truly the only reason, she’s probably going to make a lousy mother anyway, why ruin two people’s lives?
But, how can I put myself in her mind and know the real reasons?

I mentioned an example of a large family in a desperate slum type situation. To me, being logical, it would seem an abortion would benefit that mother and the family as a whole, but that poor mother may well have a strong religious faith, which actually keeps her going in those dire conditions and where abortion is a sin, so she’ll never even consider it. If it was forced upon her she’d suffer terrible guilt for the rest of her life.

So,how dare I give an opinion on what is right for her?

If someone is diagnosed as expecting a severely disabled child, both physically and intellectually, who cannot communicate or function on his/her own, those parents have to decide whether they are truly prepared and able to care for that child for the rest of his/her natural life. Some people simply do not have that ability, and are not prepared to try, nor prepared to commit a child to other care.

If the child is going to outlive them, do they have the right to lay that responsibility on the child’s siblings in the future? They may fear they are keeping someone alive when they cannot be sure that he or she is not suffering mentally, but unable to show it.

On the other hand, they may decide to risk it and hope for the best. They may all agree that the whole family will give that child all the love and care they can and hope that the child will feel this, maybe understand and perhaps one day even respond to it. They may hope that medical science advances sufficiently, in the child’s lifetime, to effect some kind of cure or easing of the condition.

How can I give an opinion on the dilemma so personal to that family?

I would never, ever try to sway someone one way or the other, only support what they chose unreservedly. I can’t even tell you what I would have decided if I had ever had to make such a hard choice.

GT

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:35 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Posts: 140
Location: Savannah, Ga
YinYangSearcher wrote:
Scenario-You and your significant other are unexpectedly with child, 6 weeks into pregnancy, while in your current situation (financialy, geographically, career, school, marital status)
What do you do?
Yin


First... it's highly unlikely that I would find myself in that position.
Second... if I did, I'd abort and move on without a second thought.

_________________
The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
First... same as Menolly.
Second... if I did, I would keep it. Again, the value I see in a zygote and its potential.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:25 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:16 am
Posts: 3140
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Thomas my dear chap, should you find yourself sudenly 6 weeks pregnant your story would be worth millions to the womens mags. Science may dip into it's collective wallet as well.
See you on Oprah!

_________________
السلام عليكم


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:29 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
Ha - with *my* upbringing? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:33 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:16 am
Posts: 3140
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Check the back of your hand for swelling, (seeks smiley denoting sly avoidance of eyes)

_________________
السلام عليكم


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:48 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:07 am
Posts: 49
Location: http://bcheap.com
i think it totally depends on the woman in question... but the advice of the partner would be important too...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:14 pm 
Offline
Philosopher
Philosopher

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:04 am
Posts: 958
Location: Belgium
Tommy GS wrote:
Unnil, I gave your last big paragraph some thought. One particular part, which was your main argument.
You wrote:
DNA will determine at least 20% of what a person will become later, both physically and mentally. The cell has nothing to do with that, so you can't say that destroying a cell is like destroying a human, since it has nothing to do with what the human will become.
The percentage is low - 20%. And you're saying that the zygote has nothing to do with the 80% that is what makes a human special, apart from its biological makeup. But that doesn't make sense to me because, there can be no 80% without the 20%. In other words, sure, the cell may have nothing to do with the Who the human is. But there can be no Who without that 20%.


No I think you got me wrong just there, I was just leading into another argument, saying that destroying the cell is not the problem, the real issue would be in destroying the dna, and DNA isn't even scientifically alive oO you can't push your arguments back further than consciousness for it not to lose it's credibility is what I thought.

gumtree, I agree with the complexity you accord to this matter, I was merely trying to generalise, because as we know, all rules have exceptions. My goal was to clarify the scientifical concept of who should and should not be considered alive. All I'm saying is that as long as the embryo/terminal patient doesn't "know" of it's own existance, no morals should ban abortion or eutanasy.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:37 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:07 am
Posts: 15
Location: Irelande!
Hannah17 wrote:
Here's a 12-year old girl with a very effective pro-life speech:

(url edited out)

It's only five minutes, take the time to watch it - she pretty much sums it all up!


I have taken time to watch this and have not yet read the entire forum but I can see many gapping holes in the arguement. IF 150,000 unborn peopl/children/cells or cluster of cells are aborted yearly ask yourself why. They are enevitabely unwanted. No woman cannot think hard before aborting and it may stay with them for life but it's better not to have 150,000 unwanted children born yearly.

It was a very articulate speach by a young girl but too much for her own young mind to possibly comprehend all the variables in play. It is also clear evidence of the influence her PARENT'S had on her 'stance'.

If someone killed me before birth I am sure It wouldn't stop my zest for lie. I'd get here eventualy. For all we know any of us could have died prematurely anyway coutnless of times.

All in all if we live in a free society noone has the right to limit our possiblities or choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:51 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
About 70% of fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine lining on their own. Thus 70% of potential humans are aborted by women due to their menstrual cycle.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:17 pm 
Offline
Enigma
Enigma

Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 1730
Which blows my mind. Statistically (Women's fertile "times"/low male sperm count) and other everyday factors would make it seem that there would rarely be a case in which accidental pregnancy occured (girls pregnant after their first time, a condom breaking leading to pregnancy, birth control pill/patch/shot failing. It would seem that one time "oops" cases almost could never happen. Some couples try for a child and still take years or never have one. Then a couple of kids have some stupid fun one time down on the river after prom and BAM, not so proud parents.

Yin

_________________
We hold these truths to be selve evident, but evidence is not ownership. Those words are not a decree that we have life, liberty, happiness. Only an iron clad statement that it is ours if we are willing to do all that is necessary to take it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:50 am 
Offline
Philosopher
Philosopher

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:04 am
Posts: 958
Location: Belgium
I guess people talk about early giving birth more often than they do about not being able to have a child, but it's true that those statistics are strange to hear. Important topicwise there is that they would make irresponsible young parents and that therefore they should be allowed and even advised abortion, unless their case is special

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:47 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
YinYangSearcher wrote:
Which blows my mind. Statistically (Women's fertile "times"/low male sperm count) and other everyday factors would make it seem that there would rarely be a case in which accidental pregnancy occured (girls pregnant after their first time, a condom breaking leading to pregnancy, birth control pill/patch/shot failing. It would seem that one time "oops" cases almost could never happen. Some couples try for a child and still take years or never have one. Then a couple of kids have some stupid fun one time down on the river after prom and BAM, not so proud parents.

Yin


:lol:

Not fair! huh? :wink:

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:16 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:07 am
Posts: 15
Location: Irelande!
Haha. that took an unexpected tangent.
Those are strange statistics indeed. From what country (if any) do they come from or cover? for one I know Irish are considered extremely fertile. This I see because of the still low Irish population. I heard that if a woman gives birt to a daughter will inherit some but not all her mother's fertility and it leads to a sliding scale. therefore the larger the population gets the less likely it will continue to grow rapidly.
I know this is a very simplified version of this theory and don't know if it has much scientific backing. Just wondering if anyone heard this too.
Not too many sccathing comments please. just throwing it out there I myself consider my self an open minded sceptic :P.



All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God. ~Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group