Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Who would judge who would be capable?
The same people who judge now.I'm not atheist, and I see it as a punishment as your forcing women to do something they don't want to do.
Taking responsibility for your actions isn't punishment.We shoudn't "reward" a featus simply because it "survived against the odds". If this was the case, would it have precedent over the womans life?
Would it not be equal to the womans life.Yes, but you receive treatment for the broken jaw. Doctors won't let you deal with your own consequences. Even if you wore no protection. You can refuse medical attention, but thats your choice.
Treatment is just assistance (from a trained profession in the case of a doctor) I'm not against people getting assistance in raising their kidsYou believe it's human when the sperm and egg combine. Why then is it a human and not before? What characteristics does it have over an animal? (I'm aware your against animal abortion, but I doubt many people would care if we were talking about a rat or spiders)
Its a human after egg and sperm combine because it contains all the gentic information required to make a human, and assuming nature takes its course, it will make a human.This is once again flawed. By this scenario, I could adopt a baby from a poor family in Africa because it'd be "better" for him. People don't have children so they can give them away. Also using your logic, why would people take the children away to orphanage, surely we'll wait and let the children decide? I mean the parents had to endure the child they didn't want for 9 months anyway. another 3 years shouldn't be that much of a problem as it's their "responsibility"
I didn't say anything about a child needing only money for a good upbringing, just because you can give it more money doesn't mean it would have a better upbringing. Also I don't see how my logic implies that you should wait for the child to decide wether or not to send them to an orphanage, for one a child of 3 couldn't make that decision.Not true. Most women don't want to relive their experience and don't want others to know that they were violated. Going through a review procedure would be traumatising as having women "prove" that they don't want the rapists child.But you can't force women to do that. Thats the whole point of my arguement. You can't make people do things they don't want to.
Why not? People are "forced" to do things they don't want to do all the time. You "have" to go to work, you "have" to pay taxes, you "have" to follow laws. I think you are mistaking freedom of choice with freedom of action. Freedom of choice exists, you can make the choice to do whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you get to do it.Why? Why should rapists who have been given their sentence not be allowed raise the child? Like a rapist getting 50 hours community service. He is "reformed" and paid for his actions, yet he should never be allowed raise his child? Why? Because of one action he has paid his dues for? Would murderers be allowed raise children? Would thieves? Would people who are to "drunk and disorderly" be allowed raise their own children? Your case only works if the childs life would be in danger.
I don't think a rapist would make a good parent for a child. 50hrs of community service is not a realistic sentence for a rapist.If the childs enviroment is unsuitable for it, a child can be taken from its parents, regardless of wether its life is in immediate danger.Well, why would rape have special status over anthing else in this matter? Besides the pregnancy would just remind her of the incident, not to mention she would get a feeling that the baby would have been tainted by the rapist and she'd wish to try again. All I'm saying is that abortion should never be locked up in a country as a "NO". It doesn't make any sense. Your forcing your own beleifs on others, which in this day and age is a joke tbh.
I think you have a pretty unlikely situation there, I don't think a pregnant woman would see her child as being "tainted" by someone who rapes her anymore than she would see the child as being damaged when having sex with her husband.
Note that I'm not saying that abortion should be all out banned in every country. I just believe it should be avoided whenever possible. While I could also point out that you are just "forcing" your beliefs on others, I'd like to know how I'm actually forcing my own beliefs over the internet, does it onvolve smileys
?
I'll take it that there is a high chance of birth defects. How about people more likely to pass on their conditions to their children? Should they be allowed have children? Should they be all sterilised? Adoption is not a solution, neither is sterilisation. I'd like to have my own child not someone elses. I'd also like to be able to concieve and not be forced into sterilisation.
Theres what people like and then theres what people get. Why try and concieve a child if there is a large risk of its life being short and painful due to illness? Assuming I were to adopt a child, I would no longer see it as someone elses, I kinda thought that was the point.So, your classifing babies and featus as the same? Does getting older mean we're more "human", or are we all the same? The funny thing is, the baby can move and probably won't figure it out. However, the featus, definatly will die. No questions asked. I'm not saying thats why a baby should live and a featus not.
I'm sure the baby will die too. A newborn can bearly move and is little more than a screaming digestive tract.0 -
-
-
Advertisement