|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 13:14:10 GMT -5
First of all, a baby without a heartbeat is still a baby.
Secondly stopping the chance of there being a baby is not the same as killing a baby that already exists.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:15:23 GMT -5
yes it is because you are stopping the baby without a heart beat from even being conceived. it is still a baby without a heart beat.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 13:18:40 GMT -5
no it isn't
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:20:47 GMT -5
yes it is because you are stopping the chance of it being a baby just like you are stopping the chance of the baby being a baby when you kill it.
yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 13:22:11 GMT -5
a baby that is killed is not having it's chance of being a baby taken away because you already said yourself that it is already a baby.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:24:09 GMT -5
grrr!!!!!! what I am saying is that with pills, adn condoms and such you are still taking away the chance that there will ever be a baby adn I do not believe that there is a baby right away. but I also wouldn't get an abortion I would put it up for adoption
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 13:47:55 GMT -5
Im not against taking away the chance that there will be a baby, I'm merely against taking the life of a baby that already exists.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:50:15 GMT -5
but it will still be a baby! how is that different?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 14:00:16 GMT -5
It is different because a baby in the future isn't the same as a baby in the present. That would be like arresting someone for stealing someone's car even if it's their car, because maybe in the future they'd sell it.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 14:02:57 GMT -5
yes but in this case you KNOW it would become a baby it's not an IF sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 14:13:19 GMT -5
Well what if you KNOW that you're gonna sell your car? Then could they arrest you for driving it because someone else will own it in the future?
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 14:20:43 GMT -5
ok you gotta explain this all again cuz I am so confused!
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 14:26:40 GMT -5
If stopping a baby from existing is bad because it will be a baby in the future, then wouldn't driving your car be bad if you're gonna sell it in the future? In the future it wouldn't be your car it would be someone else's.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Jul 26, 2005 18:51:17 GMT -5
using protection only limits the chances of having a baby, it doesnt eliminate the chance. getting an abortion means that the baby is DEAD. not being conceived is very different from being conceived and being killed.
let's say that you have a chicken and a rooster in one room. if you put the rooster in a different room, they cant make eggs, right? sounds like a good idea if you dont want the eggs. so, if you have that option, why would you keep them in the same room, let them make eggs, and then step on said eggs? doesnt make sense to me...
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jul 26, 2005 18:54:36 GMT -5
This is the one subject where im almost right down the line, the main reason why I would be for it is that 1: if you outlaw it then people are gonna get it done illegaly anyways, and this is often done by people who arent professionals and the mother often dies with the baby, normaly I would say its the mothers fault but often times she is pressured by the father or any other forms of pure pressure. 2: ... oh wait its just 1, theres more but I forgot them at the moment
|
|