I don't see the problem with it. I tend to place the value of already existing life over that of a fetus.

I was going to start a new thread about this but I guess it can go here since it relates:

What do you guys think of having girls use birth control after reaching puberty just in case they were to get raped, not that anyone plans such a thing, but I mean this could really decrease the amount of abortions that go on. Some may think of this as ridiculous but I'm just considering the ones who never planned or tried avoiding a pregnancy. After all, rape happens more than we think and so I thought maybe if girls started taking birth control and IF they were to get raped, at least they wouldn't get pregnant. Yes, I know, rape is a very horrible thing to go through, but when you're especially that young at age 13 or so and not able to raise a baby, then why not? Yes, yes, there's always adoption... but why even have the baby to begin with when there are way too many children in the adoption pool? If you can prevent pregnancy without even having to think about abortion or adoption, then why not?

This idea is so that both the pro-choice and pro-life groups can come together with a mutual agreement.

WOW!! This is one of the MOST RIDICULOUS bunch of nonsense I've ever "heard". It's heartless, stupid, and totally untrue. And you're actually FOR full-term abortion??????? You're just plain sick and totally screwed up in the head.


Anyway, I'm totally against abortion, unless it's for life/death situations. I don't believe anyone should be allowed to get an abortion just because they're "too young" to have a baby or just because they don't want one. If you feel you're "too young" to have a baby, then you shouldn't have been having sex in the first darn place. And if you don't want a baby, then simply give it up for adoption instead of murdering it.

Lol, rain, calm down.
Yes, I don't see how white has any logic in her (specifically about the 4 year old thing).
But we can't call people sick and such in a debate.

Yes, I will call someone sick if they actually feel that murdering a full-term baby is ok. It IS sick.

Whiterider is entitled to his opinion, although most people would think that is totally wrong.
Take the recent earthquake in China, you don't see on the news parents saying 'Oh well, i've only lost my three year old son, they had no soul so i don't care that much. But OH NO, i've lost my 76 year old grandmother which had the best soul around.' do you?

White and the soul thing is totally unfounded in religion and psychology, has no medical basis...
It's just some weird opinion she formed for w/e reason.
Don;t take it too seriously.

Yes, I know that Whiterider is entitled to his/her opinion, but it's still pretty pathetic and ridiculous.



Yeah, you are right. I really shouldn't be bothered with such pathetic comments.

Rain, I'm surprised you didn't get offended when Dodd said babies up to a year old being killed is not "morall wrong" either.


Lol, If I got offended by every psychopathic thought I heard, Rain, I'd be a really crappy psychologist. ; )

Now that you told me about that comment, I AM offended. I didn't see that part. Yet another ridiculous and pathetic comment. I wonder where people get such warped views of life??? Pretty sad. Thank goodness that I don't have any friends with views like that. They surely wouldn't be a friend of mine for long.

EDIT: I want to know who in the heck told Dodd that it isn't "morally wrong"????????? He sounds like a satan worshipper or something.

Well, here's hoping they never partner up and have kids?
But really, don;t let people's idle comments scare you.
It's not like any of us are the rulers of the world, so most of what we say is just chat in a sims 2 forum.

My God, AFTER birth, a healthy baby? That's definitely murder! How could anyone have no remorse after doing such a thing! That's just basically assuming that the baby is going to have a bad life, so why not kill it just IN CASE it has a bad life. I'm sorry but that's just evil. And this is coming from someone who doesn't have high morals or isn't even religious. Maybe I'm just sensitive and I feel too much compassion for babies. I mean, it's not like you go from a fetus to an adult. Obviously you have to become baby and a toddler first.

No, their comments don't scare me. They sadden/anger me because they are totally ridiculous and sickening.




Yes, it definitely IS murder AND morally wrong. It's amazing how many people can be so evil and have so many evil and cruel views. The human race amazes me more and more each day with how cruel it can be!

frankie
I actually think you have a very good sense of morality
you are one of the very few people who actively debate in here that is consistently unprejudiced, compassionate, and of sound mind.




*points Rain to my siggy*


PS: I think Dodd is an athiest, and therefore not a Satan worshipper.

No. God, no. No killing of infants AFTER birth, they're separate entities at that point and completely viable (or let's hope). You can't kill them then, that's a whole new life that's not biologically dependent (apart from food and nuture, but those come under different categories), killing that is murder.
I touched on the topic of infact euthanasia for those born with severe birth defects and I'm talking about people with unfused spines or half a face, not healthy kids! And I wasn't even sold on that idea.

Well, excluding the part months ago in a religion thread where I stated that all Christians are like the ones who give them a bad name, which I realized it was unfair but just from my anger/frustration talking.

In this case, I'm confused about abortion. I'm so liberal that to me, not being able to live how you want to live would be unfair. But at the same time, there are just those few things that I cannot seem to agree with. And abortion when it's just so close to being born... why? And I'm excluding medical reasons, I'm talking about when it's just a healthy baby. Is there absolutely no remorse here? That baby is NOT guaranteed a bad life and NO ONE has the right to assume such a thing. So there IS no excuse for killing a healthy fetus, so close to pregnancy. But I'm not against abortion within the first week or so ONLY because I learned that there is no life yet until after a few weeks. If it's hypocritical I apologize, I could be wrong, you know?

Yes, killing it after birth would definately be murder, whereas murder is legally classified as the unlawful taking of a life.

And babies are live, and in killing them... you;'d effectively be comitting murder. Not rocket science.

Foetuses younger than 24 weeks can't really survive, we have no real means of supporting them. Maybe in the future when neonatal care develops, but right now, we just can't.

I could say that him being an atheist explains it all, but not all atheists are people like him. But, anyway, he surely seems like what I would call a Satan worshipper. Just sick.

I do think that abortion in the first trimester as far preferable to later-term, but if the statistics given in that article regarding survival rates are representative, then I don't see a huge issue with abortion at 20 weeks. I'm sure that the decision to terminate isn't one that a woman takes lightly, and if they don't find out that they are pregnant until they are maybe 12-14 weeks along (I know more than one person for whom this was the case), then it's quite possible that they will be at the 4-5 month mark by the time they have made their decision.

I disagree with late-term abortion (i.e. when medical intervention would give a reasonable chance of survival) unless the mother's physical and/or mental health is at risk. But I'm not going to question a woman's right to abort a mid-term foetus (with minimal to no chance of survival on its own) if she has taken a little longer to reach her decision, because I would want the right to make that same decision if I found myself in that situation.

I know that many people will disagree, and that my view is probably somewhat biased - I hate children, have no maternal instince and absolutely no intention of ever becoming a mother - but as far as I'm concerned, until a foetus is capable of sustaining life in its own right, it's a potential human. It is living, but it is not a life. I am living, I HAVE a life, and that gives me priority over any foetus. And certainly gives me priority over a little cluster of cells (if we consider early-term abortion).

Satan doesn't exist, and even he did I wouldn't worship him.

Infanticide has been acceptable in many cultures in history. It is not (to borrow from Faithlove's terminology from the incest thread) a 'universal taboo'.

As I have said in the euthanasia post, I think murder is only wrong if somebody values their life. That is, the only thing wrong with death is being forced to do it against your will.

Embryos, foetuses and infants don't have the ability to value their life, or even a concept of self, so under my logic, it follows that their death is not intrinsically wrong. They don't have the ability to form a will for me to go against by killing them (of course, the parents do have the ability to value their child's life, so I wouldn't go around killing everyone's babies because it would upset them. But if the parents wanted to kill their baby, I wouldn't stop them).

People in China used to abandon baby girls on hillsides because they wanted boys. Some still do. Is it better to be left to die than die in the womb when you're not as aware?

No, because the pain caused by such a slow death would be cruel, as infants can still experience pain. The earlier, and the quicker, the death the better.

RainNCandy, please be aware that people have thier opinions and are obviously expressing them here. Repressing opinions becuase others call them "sick" or "ridiculous" or "satanic" really doesn't do anybody any good.

Debate intelligently and without recourse to calling people names, please.

I agree with that. I'm may not agree about the infanticide, but that does not mean Doddi is a Satan worshipper.

Doddi, if it's about pain, then a simple anaesthetic would put an end to that.