quote:

Originally posted by ~Laura~:

quote:

Originally posted by kait.:

quote:

Originally posted by ~Laura~:

quote:

Originally posted by kait.:
Laura, now you're talking about how YOU could never live with it, etc. But before, your argument was that flat out, it's wrong. Why even bring that aspect of your opinion in it if you're not even going to acknowledge the legitimacy of our opinions (that they have the choice to do it, it's their body. And not all women are going to go through the exact same thing as your friend either)? We've all already agreed with you that it's wrong. And I don't see how you can possibly think that in no way are we right in what we've ALL been saying.

You keep saying how YOU would feel a situation and all, but you don't seem to be taking into account that not everyone feels the same way in situations as you. Some women would be able to cope with an abortion easier than an adoption, and some vise versa, and that's just a fact.

I don't know if any of that even made sense, but I have a question. What is it that makes you think that you have any right to decide for any other woman what she should and shouldn't be allowed to do with her body, or something her body partially created and will have to take care of throughout the pregnancy, regardless of whether or not she keeps it or gives it up for adoption? And I mean this all abortion facts set aside. Even if it is 'murder' in your opinion, why is it okay for anyone to tell anyone else what to do in a situation that doesn't involve any other currently living walking breathing human being.

That aspect of my argument wasmy own opinion, you're right. But that's not the basis of my reasoning. Let me ask you this. What makes you think that a woman should have the right to kill an innocent child that, regardless of the fact feeds and breathes through the mother, is his own individual being and is separate from his mother?

The government has every right to dictate the legality of abortion because it's murder. End of story. You think a woman's choice is more important than a baby's life? Please! How selfish!

Like I said before. With the mentality that we shouldn't tell anyone to not do things when we aren't involved, then we wouldn't have any laws. Why are we stopping rapists from raping kids? I'm not involved, only 2 people are involved. We make laws for the benefit and safety of the people, of all of mankind. You're saying now that we should only protect humans that are living, walking, and breathing on their own I'm assuming, right? Obviously the baby is alive from the moment of conception or it wouldn't be growing. But then you're saying that if humans aren't walking or breathing then they don't count. So let's not bother with children who are born without legs or babies who are born with premature lungs. How is that fair?

Our Constitution states that everyone has the right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's as simple as that but people keep trying to make this such a complicated issue. If you were given a chance to live, you should be granted the liberty to live it without people getting in your way.

That didn't answer my question. Apparently you didn't understand the last paragraph that I posted, because I said all abortion facts set aside, etc. I want a straight up answer as to why you think it's okay to tell someone else how to live their life regarding anything, whether it be abortion, smoking, premarital sex, or anything else.

And if you read, you would see that I answered in two ways.

1)What makes you think that a woman should have the right to kill an innocent child that, regardless of the fact feeds and breathes through the mother, is his own individual being and is separate from his mother?

and

2)Because you are harming another human.

Don't put abortion with smoking becase smoking only involves the smoker. Pre-marital sex involves two consentual people. Abortion involves a mother and child and the child has no say in the matter. Abortion takes the strength of one person, who is supposed to be a loving and nurturing figure to her child, and kills an innocent child. There is no comparison.

I gave you my answer to your question. Please answer mine.

Actually, smoking involves and effects not only the smoker, but anyone around the smoker. Hello, second hand smoke.

And, to answer your question, because I believe in fate. I believe that if a woman aborts a baby, that was in God's plan, or he at least already knew it was going to happen. If every baby that was ever conceived were born, we would have more than an abundance of orphaned children than we already do. And, like I said before, there is no way to make everything in a situation like this good. Either you abort the baby, or that baby puts a restraint on not only your life, but the lives of the people around you and that only leads to a poor life for that child. As for adoption, re-read what I said above as to why just putting all of the children up for adoption isn't very possible, or fair.

Also, no one has a recollection of anything before the age of two, if even that. In that case, it's not like the baby KNOWS what's going on, or what it's going through. If nothing else, it goes to Heaven for the rest of eternity since it's so innocent, right? Isn't Heaven a better alternative than putting it on this hell-hole of a planet with anything less than what it deserves?

You're not going to change my mind, and you're obviously not going to realize that you can't make other people's decisions for them, so this discussion is pointless, now.

I just consulted my dad on these subjects lol and here are what I think of the topics discussed.

God hates divorce, but He does not hate the divorcee. I believe it's the same for gays. I kinda torn about the abortion/rape thing, but I believe God will not put us in situations we cannot bear. If it does happen, I suppose we have to pray and try to understand why he put us in that situation.

I'm not a perfect christian, like jayne, I do get tired sometimes, and fall away from God. We're only human and we commit mistakes.

Oh and Jesus is God. The Holy Trinity consists of God the Father, God the Son(that is, Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit.

quote:

Originally posted by killakayleigh:
the constitution doesn't apply to an unborn child, though. so you can't use it as an argument.

But once again, that's what we're trying to argue. I don't see how it CAN'T apply to an unborn child.

quote:

Actually, smoking involves and effects not only the smoker, but anyone around the smoker. Hello, second hand smoke.

And, to answer your question, because I believe in fate. I believe that if a woman aborts a baby, that was in God's plan, or he at least already knew it was going to happen. If every baby that was ever conceived were born, we would have more than an abundance of orphaned children than we already do. And, like I said before, there is no way to make everything in a situation like this good. Either you abort the baby, or that baby puts a restraint on not only your life, but the lives of the people around you and that only leads to a poor life for that child. As for adoption, re-read what I said above as to why just putting all of the children up for adoption isn't very possible, or fair.

Also, no one has a recollection of anything before the age of two, if even that. In that case, it's not like the baby KNOWS what's going on, or what it's going through. If nothing else, it goes to Heaven for the rest of eternity since it's so innocent, right? Isn't Heaven a better alternative than putting it on this hell-hole of a planet with anything less than what it deserves?

You're not going to change my mind, and you're obviously not going to realize that you can't make other people's decisions for them, so this discussion is pointless, now.

True, I didn't think about second hand smoke. But it's very indirect. You aren't smoking with the intent to kill someone. With abortion, that is your ultimate goal, to terminate your child.

I agree with you there. Anything that happens is in God's plan, ok. But then if whatever happens is in God's plan, then why do we bother keeping order? The Holocaust was in God's plan, that certainly doesn't justify the actions of the Nazis. You have to preserve good an destroy evil the best you can with laws, and allowing abortion isn't giving kids the chance to live. You are making assumptions about the baby's lives and the lives of his/her family which isn't fair. Just because a mother doesn't want a baby and puts the baby up for adoption doesn't mean that the child will have a poor life. You can't assume that everyone will be unhappy and act on that. That's not the purpose of our government. It's here to preserve and protect, you can't justify killing 4000 innocent babies because "it isn't possible to keep them." They're humans, not stray dogs. The fact of the matter is the issue boils down to the fact that people belve a mother's happiness and right to choose is more important than the life of a child. Disgusting.

I probably won't change your mind like you won't change mine, but don't you realize that the government makes thousands of decisions for you? It takes away your money for taxes, if Obama gets elected then he'll take away even more money to give everyone health care. The purpose of representative government is that officials make decisions for you, ones that hopefully benefit mankind and not just the individual.

quote:

Originally posted by ~Laura~:

quote:

Originally posted by killakayleigh:
the constitution doesn't apply to an unborn child, though. so you can't use it as an argument.

But once again, that's what we're trying to argue. I don't see how it CAN'T apply to an unborn child.

what do you mean by that's what you're trying to argue?

your argument keeps switching from a fetus SHOULD have rights to a fetus DOES have rights. it's one or the other, so please decide which it is and argue that point.

if it's that a fetus should have rights, all you can really say is that "a fetus should have rights and therefore abortion should be wrong and illegal" but it doesn't and it isn't.

quote:

True, I didn't think about second hand smoke. But it's very indirect. You aren't smoking with the intent to kill someone. With abortion, that is your ultimate goal, to terminate your child.

I agree with you there. Anything that happens is in God's plan, ok. But then if whatever happens is in God's plan, then why do we bother keeping order? The Holocaust was in God's plan, that certainly doesn't justify the actions of the Nazis. You have to preserve good an destroy evil the best you can with laws, and allowing abortion isn't giving kids the chance to live. You are making assumptions about the baby's lives and the lives of his/her family which isn't fair. Just because a mother doesn't want a baby and puts the baby up for adoption doesn't mean that the child will have a poor life. You can't assume that everyone will be unhappy and act on that. That's not the purpose of our government. It's here to preserve and protect, you can't justify killing 4000 innocent babies because "it isn't possible to keep them." They're humans, not stray dogs. The fact of the matter is the issue boils down to the fact that people belve a mother's happiness and right to choose is more important than the life of a child. Disgusting.

I probably won't change your mind like you won't change mine, but don't you realize that the government makes thousands of decisions for you? It takes away your money for taxes, if Obama gets elected then he'll take away even more money to give everyone health care. The purpose of representative government is that officials make decisions for you, ones that hopefully benefit mankind and not just the individual.

Regardless of intent, it's still harmful to a LOT of people that aren't making the choice to smoke. Why aren't we acting upon that? Mothers who smoke are harming the babies in the womb, and their children that they're always around. Technically, that's slowly killing people/setting them up for death. Why is not as important as abortion?

"You can't assume that everyone will be unhappy and act on that."

You also cannot assume that everyone will be happy, or even adopted at all.

"The fact of the matter is the issue boils down to the fact that people belve a mother's happiness and right to choose is more important than the life of a child. Disgusting."

I have to disagree with you there. I don't think anyone actually thinks that, I think you're twisting people's words to come to a conclusion that sounds bad. Having a baby doesn't affect just the baby's life. It affects the lives of people all around the mother, the mother's friends, the mother's family, and the same with the father. In a situation where you're pregnant, you have to consider more than just the baby. Depending on the situation, I fully straight up believe that taking the life away from a baby is better than causing any kind of havoc or restraint in MULTIPLE people's lives. Those people have worked for years to get to the point that they're at, regardless of what point that may be, and you think it's completely fair to let ONE mishap let all of those years of work go to waste? Just to put your life and the life of others around you on hold to raise a baby properly, even if just for 9 months until the adoption is done? No matter what, it's not 'fair' to at least ONE person. It's just up to personal opinions which side deserves the chance more, and it's not always the baby.

quote:

Originally posted by killakayleigh:

quote:

Originally posted by ~Laura~:

quote:

Originally posted by killakayleigh:
the constitution doesn't apply to an unborn child, though. so you can't use it as an argument.

But once again, that's what we're trying to argue. I don't see how it CAN'T apply to an unborn child.

what do you mean by that's what you're trying to argue?

your argument keeps switching from a fetus SHOULD have rights to a fetus DOES have rights. it's one or the other, so please decide which it is and argue that point.

if it's that a fetus should have rights, all you can really say is that "a fetus should have rights and therefore abortion should be wrong and illegal" but it doesn't and it isn't.

What I"m saying is that the baby does have the rights, but the government won't recognize them. That's why I say "should." Sorry if that was confusing.

quote:

Regardless of intent, it's still harmful to a LOT of people that aren't making the choice to smoke. Why aren't we acting upon that? Mothers who smoke are harming the babies in the womb, and their children that they're always around. Technically, that's slowly killing people/setting them up for death. Why is not as important as abortion?

"You can't assume that everyone will be unhappy and act on that."

You also cannot assume that everyone will be happy, or even adopted at all.

"The fact of the matter is the issue boils down to the fact that people belve a mother's happiness and right to choose is more important than the life of a child. Disgusting."

I have to disagree with you there. I don't think anyone actually thinks that, I think you're twisting people's words to come to a conclusion that sounds bad. Having a baby doesn't affect just the baby's life. It affects the lives of people all around the mother, the mother's friends, the mother's family, and the same with the father. In a situation where you're pregnant, you have to consider more than just the baby. Depending on the situation, I fully straight up believe that taking the life away from a baby is better than causing any kind of havoc or restraint in MULTIPLE people's lives. Those people have worked for years to get to the point that they're at, regardless of what point that may be, and you think it's completely fair to let ONE mishap let all of those years of work go to waste? Just to put your life and the life of others around you on hold to raise a baby properly, even if just for 9 months until the adoption is done? No matter what, it's not 'fair' to at least ONE person. It's just up to personal opinions which side deserves the chance more, and it's not always the baby.

I see what you're saying. But smoking doesn't always kill. Abortion does. You can't ban something like smoking when people have been smoking for thousands of years yet haven't died from it. Smoking may cause cancer. Then again, so do ultraviolet rays. If that's the case, then we should get rid of TVs and microwaves because MAYBE someone could be harmed. I know many smokers who died from natural causes and their kids are fine. Sugar is also harmful, in the wrong amounts. The ability to kill and the intent to kill are very different. Intention is everything.

Yea, maybe not everyone will be happy but it's the right thing to do. I don't think killing someone to make them happy is the right thing to do, even though the mother thinks she'll be happy afterward.

But listen to what you're saying. You're condoning murder to make other people's lives easier/happier. Who told you you could do that? And yes, if the woman was stupid eough to let herself get pregnant, then she should pay for the consequences, not the baby. Why make the baby pay for the mistakes of the mother? How is that just?