Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.[/quote]
Holy cow! That is deep man. Seriously.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
All those who oppose abortion tend to do so from a religious front. I usually find that one is quite hard pressed to find an athiest against abortion.
[/quote]
That’s a generalization. There are many atheists against abortion, our very own Zap Branigan is one.
And since when does being a parent give one the right to kill their child? If at birth, the parents decided that the pain and suffering Julianna was going to go through was not worth it, they could have refused medical treatment for her condition. A coma could have been induced, and the feeding tube never used. She would have slowly and painlessly died, but she would not have been killed. This is the difference between killing and letting die, and there is a big moral difference here.
I didn’t misunderstand what you were saying, I was just showing how you made a good point that you didn’t really intend to make.
Life begins at conception. There is no debate about this. It is very cut and dry. Life is defined by metabolism, reproduction, and response to stimuli. At conception, the embryo is capable of all of these. There is no question as to the life of the embryo.
An infant meets these criterion no better than a fetus.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
Someone who knows their child will be seriously mentally or physically handicapped (as in Juliana’s case) does not show true love by saying “it’s the inside that counts, she should be allowed to live” but rather shows it by thinking of the tremendous suffering the child will go through and realizing that sometimes the best course of action is the least painful.
[/quote]
I wonder what Helen Keller would have said to this.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Someone who knows their child will be seriously mentally or physically handicapped (as in Juliana’s case) does not show true love by saying “it’s the inside that counts, she should be allowed to live” but rather shows it by thinking of the tremendous suffering the child will go through and realizing that sometimes the best course of action is the least painful.
I wonder what Helen Keller would have said to this.[/quote]
Key word is sometimes 
There are always exceptions.
[quote]tedro wrote:
That’s a generalization. There are many atheists against abortion, our very own Zap Branigan is one.
[/quote]
I structured my sentence the way i did to demonstrate that i was stating my opinion
[quote]tedro wrote:
And since when does being a parent give one the right to kill their child? If at birth, the parents decided that the pain and suffering Julianna was going to go through was not worth it, they could have refused medical treatment for her condition. A coma could have been induced, and the feeding tube never used. She would have slowly and painlessly died, but she would not have been killed. This is the difference between killing and letting die, and there is a big moral difference here.[/quote]
That’s just splitting hairs. It’s like someone saying killing animals is wrong but they eat meat. You aren’t directly doing it, but the result is the same. That’s why it’s easier to kill with a gun than with bare hands.
This is my point on morality. Forget the whole “political correctness”. You’re trying to look at it from a “not get my hands dirty” point of view when you should only care for the child.
Killing someone or willingly letting them die is more or less the same.
A parent does have a right to kill a fetus. We live in a society that likes to be nosy but beating your kid and such was common “back then”. A child is the burden of the parents and no one else. There could be many situations where a child being born could be disastrous. For one, if the child will develop tremendous health issues. For two, if the parents are not able to support the child, mother risks death, etc…
Also, since the fetus is inside the woman, and is 100 percent reliant on the mother, she has complete say on the fetus. You cannot get to the fetus if you don’t go through the mother.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I didn’t misunderstand what you were saying, I was just showing how you made a good point that you didn’t really intend to make.[/quote]
I’m awesome like that 
[quote]tedro wrote:
Life begins at conception. There is no debate about this. It is very cut and dry. Life is defined by metabolism, reproduction, and response to stimuli. At conception, the embryo is capable of all of these. There is no question as to the life of the embryo.[/quote]
A fetus is alive the same way a tree is alive. A fetus can be compared to a person in a vegetative state.
[quote]tedro wrote:
An infant meets these criterion no better than a fetus.[/quote]
Disagree. The infant has a history. The interaction it has with the doctor, nurses and parents for one. The communication of it’s cry and so forth. The infant is able to directly interact with those in society, albeit in useless ways. The fetus is unseen and unheard.