Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Pro Life or Pro Choice?  (Read 6359 times)
London_Rain
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2009, 02:40:07 PM »

You make a good point, although evolutionarily speaking, we're decreasing the gene pool from which "better" mutations could come.
I must add that pro-lifers stand especially for the weak who have difficulty speaking for themselves--hence the focus on the unborn, the aged, the disabled, etc.
Whether or not these people would have turned out horribly is not the point; all humans should have a chance to make a life for themselves--and that means creating an environment where they can be born, raised well, and free and prepared to make choices and learn from their mistakes. Bill Press is right that we can't stop caring for them once they've exited the womb.

- Evolutionarily speaking, we are also getting rid of future harmful genes. There is always a positive and a negative. "We're giving them the chance to become great citizens!" I can also say, "By not aborting, you are letting robbers and murderers come into life and kill those great citizens!"

- "all humans should have a chance to make a life for themselves." First off, its hard to tell when you actually consider the baby to be human. But we won't worry ourselves about that. If a teenage girl gets raped and is going to have a baby, why is it wrong for her to abort that baby? Shouldn't we give her a chance to live up to her full potential? Yes, we should. It isn't her fault that she got raped, and it isn't her fault that her life is screwed up now.

Who gets precedence? Should the girls life be ruined to let a baby, who will grow up knowing that he/she ruined its mothers life, is fatherless, and will most likely be broke be allowed to sprout into its full potential?

The living always takes precedence over a ball of cells. There is no question about it. If you are alive, you are more important than a clump of cells who has the *potential* to live, the *potential* to survive and the *potential* to do something good and not screw up its life.

Sure, maybe a baby that got aborted could have grown up to be Bach, and maybe that baby that got aborted could have grown up to be Jack the Ripper, but that doesn't matter. A living life is vastly more important than a clump of cells.
Logged
pyroclasticlux
pandora's chatterbox
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****

Karma: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 198



vek zhivi - vek uchis'!

refloexion
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2009, 12:35:22 PM »



Quote
I must add that pro-lifers stand especially for the weak who have difficulty speaking for themselves--hence the focus on the unborn, the aged, the disabled, etc.
I can understand this; I do think that it fits in your case.  many pro-lifers I've met, however, only focus on the unborn; they don't often consider the rest, which is really what I take issue with.

still, I agree with L_R's assessment.
in cases of abortion where the mother's life is endangered, I think it is completely unfair to choose the life of the UNborn where someone already alive is concerned.  why take an established life away for an unestablished one?
why is it permissible to be pro-life with a foetus but not with an independent person?

Logged

l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

eXTReMe Tracker