quote:

How can people say that...think about all of your friends and family and all that you do that you love so much. Now think about how you would feel not having them around or you not ever being around to meet them and grow to love them back.

I wish people would stop using this argument because it doesn't work at all. If they had never been born, we wouldn't know them and thus not miss them. It's like asking someone to imagine how much they would miss chocolate if they had never had it. You wouldn't miss it because you never tasted it.

Lol good point there. Honestly I didnt even notice what heading it was under at first... I just was scannign the title and clicked on this one to see what people were saying.

lmao meg.

This still isn't international relations...

Hmm.... I think maybe the poitn i was trying to get to in my last post was to stop arguing abotu every minute little detail and angle of either pro or anti abortion, and just realise that things die all the time. is it really such a bad thing?

quote:

Also abortion causes long term damage. It can make it to where you can never have kids again and it also causes a lot of mental and emotional pain such as guilt. I know someone who's had an abortion and they deal with it EVERY SINGLE DAY of their life.

And raising kids isn't difficult? Would you rather have a kid being raised in a horrible home with abusive parents and turn out thoroughly messed up? not that i'm saying theres a really high possibility of that happening, it was just a hypothetical situation that popped into my head. Ugh. honestly, I'm sick to death of the whole abortion debate anyways. Yeah, fetuses are alive, just in the same way that babies and adults and plants and barnacles and every other living organism is alive. yes, they have a heartbeat, yes they look like miniature humans, yes, its probably heartwrenching to have to go through having an abortion. but you know what? thats how it goes being an animal on this here earth. you can't protect every life that gets started. If you did, imagine how much more overpopulated this place would be... besides, honestly, (and cynically), individual lives really aren't that miraculous or special or unique when you think about them, i mean look at how often they happen.



wow, no hows that for me being pessimistic? i'm sure i'll get my heart back later and feel bad for posting this aweful, rambling post, but right now i kinda like how i just got it all off of my chest...

quote:

Now think about how you would feel not having them around or you not ever being around to meet them and grow to love them back.

I would never have met them therefore I would never have missed them.

quote:

Originally posted by LoveTheRainbow:
They aren't alive yet.

How can people say that...think about all of your friends and family and all that you do that you love so much. Now think about how you would feel not having them around or you not ever being around to meet them and grow to love them back.

quote:

other babies shouldn't die because of it.

They aren't alive yet.

I'll post how ever many times I got to to get the point across...while what you're saying about the orphanages is true other babies shouldn't die because of it.

quote:

I just think it's selfish to kill a child that some one else wants.

There are so many kids already out there in foster care and orphanages. Give them families first. When the time comes that there are no more kids ALREADY alive suffering in places like, then you can preach about giving the kids up to parents that want them.

And stop triple posting.

quote:

Originally posted by Kate127:

quote:

There isn't another option, adoption is not an option

Yes. Its much better to have a dead child than mood swings.

How can you people be so mean?

quote:

Originally posted by speed:
Most women suffer from some form or other of post birth depression. going through all the side effects that child birth causes and giving the child up to adoption is likely to cause serious psychological damage to a mother. My ex suffered 4+ months of a bipolar like condition because of the hormonal distabilization that abortion causes
don't talk like you know anything about this if you havent even had sex.

Adoption is too an option...look at all the families who can't get pregnat that want kids. I just think it's selfish to kill a child that some one else wants.

Also abortion causes long term damage. It can make it to where you can never have kids again and it also causes a lot of mental and emotional pain such as guilt. I know someone who's had an abortion and they deal with it EVERY SINGLE DAY of their life.

And you don't have to have had sex to know anything about this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by speed:
link doesn't work.
my exgirlfriend aborted our lump of lifeless cells. so what

You are so freaking hateful

While things can not be completely certain (Uncertainty Principle seems somewhat prevalent. We can never have a completely specific measurement.), we can predict things to a certain degree of accuracy. While it is true that it is not completely certain, there is a high percentage of chance, that inf act the embryo will develope into a child; such is it's inherent purpose. Otherwise, as a demonstrated before, no science can be derived. Even laws which have been proven many times (Although I understand some have been subject to change), would be vulnerable, because of the one little detail that could shift; and with that said, it is safe to assume that with a good accuracy of these moments, these events shall occur.

As demonstrated before: If I drop a book, the book will naturally fall towards the ground (Law of Gravitation). It while would be logical to say that some unforeseen consequence would prevent the book from falling to the ground, I can, within a safe certainty, predict that the book will fall towards the ground.

Which then brings me back to theoretical physics. While theoretical physics does bear the stigma of being just that, "A theory", we must then extrapolate what exactly constitutes a theory.

Theory, is defined as:
"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Note the key words "Well-Substantiated", and "System of Accepted Knowledge". We must then assume that these conditions have been tested before. Such as the theory of the speed of light. It has been tested before, and therefore we can approximate what the actual speed of light is.

The same can be asserted with the Law of gravitation. While the Law of gravitation has been proven many times, it is still subject to a random event defying the law. With that said, it is safe to assume that the law will work, within a safe distance of accuracy.

With such, while it may be difficult to test, it is hardly no impossible; we simply lack the technology or time. Otherwise, every theory is invalidated until it becomes a law, and we can not test, or extrapolate from such a theory, that it is in any way valid.

This then leads us to the concept of time. It is arguable that time is a philosophical concept, and I can see points where it is. In such, I present to you my previous arguments, which deal with such philosophical standpoints.

It must also be taken into account that time is a physical property (Ergo the four dimensions), and that it's definition can be subject to physical laws.

quote:

I think what speed is trying to say (and this may be completely off-base) is that it is not certain that an embryo will become a child. It is a distinct possibility, yes, but unforeseen circumstances could prevent that embryo from ever developing past that stage. Nothing in life is certain, so an argument shouldn't be based on the idea that things are certain.

very well phrased. you have understood what i was trying to say.

Every one of your arguments come from theoreticall physics. the thing with theoreticall physics is, as it's name says, theoretical. There is no way of physically proving anything of what you said. Some theories are accepted as they are the easiest or most probable way of explaining certain things, but they are in no way infalible. The concept of time itself can be considered more philosophycal than physicall, and that is my standpoint for my views.

I think what speed is trying to say (and this may be completely off-base) is that it is not certain that an embryo will become a child. It is a distinct possibility, yes, but unforeseen circumstances could prevent that embryo from ever developing past that stage. Nothing in life is certain, so an argument shouldn't be based on the idea that things are certain.

quote:

I think it's fair to say that most people on YN aren't as proficient as you when it comes to forming immaculate philosophical arguments

It's the truth.

Unfortunately, ignoring the evidence presented, does not invalidated the evidence. While I may have copied and pasted from another source, I did provide the evidence, read and comprehend the evidence, and I provided extrapolations on top of the evidence provided, which if you had looked, dealt with what you said. Otherwise, using this mantra, any evidence presented in peer reviewed journals, would simply be "Copying-And-Pasting", and therefore invalidated. All fact thusly, would be invalidated as well.

First, while there may be no existing past or future, there are likely outcomes/results of both. We can also feel the effects of the passing of such an age, which makes it in some ways tangible. Without the before moments of this existence, there would be nothing in totality existing. Otherwise, the present wouldn't exist (Which I dealt with in my argument). Without accurate measurements of the past, present, and then predictions for the future, science couldn't exist (Another thing I dealt with in my paragraph below, penned by myself.)

You also define time, "As an instant", yet my argument showed that "Time", is not specifically related to a single instant. Continuing on to assert that it is, in light of the arguments, and no supporting backing, makes your argument invalid.

Your argument also fails to take into account the possibility of time travel. It hasn't been completely disparaged by physics either, so to assert that you can't go back, is illogical, because there is no supporting argument for this claim that doesn't have on overlap of a promoting argument for the claim itself.

copy-pasting stuff from wikipedia is very easy but it has no argumentative value in my view.

Also i believe you missed what i was trying to say, when i define time as an instant, and i state there is no existing past or future i mean that there is not a substantial, tangible, and existing(according to the tipical definition of existence)point we could somehow "travel" back to. you can't go back in time because there isn't a "back". the past isn't something that's sitting there for you to visit on a dinosaur safari. The future is likewise.