forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

What if they are born without consciousness?
It's already happened. In Britain I believe. A child could not be taken care of by the hospitals so the parents tried to go somewhere else to get a cure. The gov disagreed and refused. Thy finally said to give them the child until he dies and they refused. (I think I have my facts right.)
I'll say it straight. They're fakers that use the movement because they are against abortion.

If they are born brain dead? Then they aren't alive! Their body cannot survive without a machine pumping air into them, without taking care of their fluids and whatnot. How is that life?

Born with the things to regulate lungs etc. but without consciousness.

You body doesn't work without consciousness. Even if you have lungs, if you are brain dead (w/o consciousness), your lungs will not inflate and deflate without assistance.

I found a case like that. The girl was born without the part of her brain for thoughts. But her lungs and heartbeat worked I think.

So yes, abortion is a last resort in some cases. But every child does deserve a chance at life. we can't say in advance whether or not that child will someday become a cereal killer or a president. Who should have the power to tell that unborn child they don't think it will have a happy life. No one should be able to do that, whether the government or the child's mother.

So you would force a woman to carry something within her body that she does not want?

Women are not incubators.

If the other option was to kill the child then yes.

So yes, abortion is a last resort in some cases. But every child does deserve a chance at life. we can't say in advance whether or not that child will someday become a cereal killer or a president. Who should have the power to tell that unborn child they don't think it will have a happy life. No one should be able to do that, whether the government or the child's mother.

So you would force a woman to carry something within her body that she does not want?

Women are not incubators.

If the other option was to kill the child then yes.

No. No no no no. You are taking away a woman's right to her body. That's illegal. That's straight up treating a woman as nothing more than a broodmare.

I found a case like that. The girl was born without the part of her brain for thoughts. But her lungs and heartbeat worked I think.

cite?

That only works without consent.

I found a case like that. The girl was born without the part of her brain for thoughts. But her lungs and heartbeat worked I think.

cite?

Later I'm in class.

That only works without consent.

If she wants an abortion obviously she does not consent to having a fetus grow within her.

That only works without consent.

If she wants an abortion obviously she does not consent to having a fetus grow within her.

But she consented to doing the thing that makes babies.

That only works without consent.

If she wants an abortion obviously she does not consent to having a fetus grow within her.

But she consented to doing the thing that makes babies.

Is rape not in the question in this scenario?

As it is the 2% thing it is not rape in this instance.

Hear ya go Eris. I don't know if this will prove my point but here it is.

Okay. I believe in that consent to sex is not consent to a child. Saying no one should have sex without anticipating a child is a bit ridiculous. Pushing for safe sex is always a good thing, to prevent the need for an abortion.

Safe sex doesn't exist. Safer sex is a more proper term.

Okay. I believe in that consent to sex is not consent to a child. Saying no one should have sex without anticipating a child is a bit ridiculous. Pushing for safe sex is always a good thing, to prevent the need for an abortion.

^^^^

Well they are kind of inseparable so…

Safe sex doesn't exist. Safer sex is a more proper term.

Safe sex does exist. Having a trusting partner, consent, contraception, and a clear idea about the act itself is practicing safe sex.

Well they are kind of inseparable so…

They are NOT inseparable. If that were so people would be getting pregnant every time they had sex.

Sex does not equal child.

Sex equals sex.

Contraception is not 100% non failing.

Well they are kind of inseparable so…

They are NOT inseparable. If that were so people would be getting pregnant every time they had sex.

Sex does not equal child.

Sex equals sex.

But find me a child without sex first.

99.9% of the time, contraception works.

Hmm… Very safer sex. But not foolproof.

Nothing in this world is foolproof.

Fair.

I'm glad we reached a consensus on that point.

The point we're stuck on is: If a person knows there is a slight chance of pregnancy, does that mean they are responsible for the child.

Hmm…

I'm still stuck on the fact that you said it's okay to force a woman to have an unwanted child.

So so. I think if there is already a child. It is right to keep the mother from killing said child. Do I make myself clear?

What about a parent who, 9 years into parenting, decides, hey, I'm done with kids. They go and decide to kill their kids, is that fair? It isn't the child's fault. Some kids are unwanted, what about twins? Maybe we should kill all the second ones just because their parents weren't expecting two.