Are fathers who kill kids after losing their jobs akin to some mothers who have abortions? --- Fear of not being able to take care of their kids. Are both understandable?

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• +6 - good point Yarnlady

  • Report
  

  by Miss Anubis loves this season on June 10th, 2009

• Good answer.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on June 10th, 2009

• Why do you say human-LIKE? Do women carry some other type of organism? I could have sworn human women could only carry human fetuses.

  • Report
  

  by angus1 on October 10th, 2009

• bad answer -1

  • Report
  

  by Diogo on November 10th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Exactly.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on June 10th, 2009

• Tumors have no brain activity, beating heart, circulatory system, kidneys, liver, spinal cord, arms, legs, etc. But, likening the fetus to a tumor helps prevent any guilt from having killed a human being, I suppose.

  • Report
  

  by Curtis on July 8th, 2009

• best response i've seen on here yet curtis

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 12th, 2009

• Thanks, .Ace.

  • Report
  

  by Curtis on August 16th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• they're a lot more than a clump of cells after about 3 months. they're a fully grown baby when most women get abortions

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• A crying empty illiterate, ignorant, helpless newborn baby is not the same as a Ph.D breast cancer researcher.

  • Report
  

  by angus1 on October 10th, 2009

• In my eyes, no functioning brain = no life. If someone is brain dead, they are not truly alive. When we talk about 'brain activity', we're talking about organized activity in the cortex, and, to my knowledge, the cortex isn't actually formed until the last 2 months of pregnancy. Sure, you can find electrical activity early in pregnancy, but it's the same kind of electrical activity you'd get if you hooked a carrot or a potato up to an EEG.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• I understand this justification for early abortions (I don't agree with it though). But would you think it's fine for a baby just delivered to be killed? I'm sure that doesn't have much brain function. Does something happen from the time it is in the womb to the next day when it leaves it?

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• I don't agree with really late term abortions, usually. Mainly because if you want an abortion, you can easily obtain one before you have an almost fully developed baby. I think that late term abortions are only really acceptable if there is some life threatening medical condition which requires an abortion, or if the baby is already dead, and needs to be removed from the womb.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• Randomness - Biology is really all that counts. Everyone can have their own individual philosophy as to who deserves to live or dies. Biologically, abortion kills humans.
   
  Brain-death (not coming back) and a brain that is not yet fully developed are truly not equivalent, unless one wants to ignore the difference.

  • Report
  

  by angus1 on October 10th, 2009

• I understand that there is a difference between a brain not yet functioning, and a brain that has ceased functioning, but, in my opinion, while there are differences there are also similarities. Neither is truly "alive".

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• the difference is that the one is going to be alive, the other's life is ended.
  -
  I agree that abortion is acceptable (at any stage) to save the life of the mother. That's the only time I consider it morally acceptable

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• One is 'going' to be alive? It has a 'chance' at life. What about sperm? It has a chance at life, and has no brain function. Is killing sperm murder too? How about eggs?
  -
  The only time? What about in cases of rape or incest? Or if the fetus is severely damaged and will die during/soon after birth?

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• 99.999% of sperm are going to die within 2-3 days anyway. Also, sperm aren't organisms. Sperm are cells USED by organisms in the reproductive process.
   
  Should a newborn who is a product of rape be killed? Do doctors sometimes make mistakes about a baby's prognosis after birth?

  • Report
  

  by angus1 on October 10th, 2009

• When a sperm and an ovum unite, that life is all predetermined. That's when the blueprint is set in stone for that person.
  -
  I don;t know what to say about those other scenarios, I really don't. What I find contemptible is people aborting babies out of convenience. Why not just have some control over themselves? Why have sex if they can't be responsible? And then this crap where they abort it because it's not the gender they want. That is an abomination!

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• The blueprint is not set in stone for a person at conception. Environmental factors greatly influence the development of the fetus.
  -
  I also find it horrid for people to use abortion as a form of birth control. People need to be smart enough to protect themselves. Prevention is always better than cure. I'd like it very much if there were no more abortions, ever. I think that to achieve this, we need to have a proper sex education in schools, rather than this 'abstinence-only' crap, which has been proven time and again to be ineffective and even detrimental, and we need to have harsher punishments for rape to avoid repeat offenses. In a lot of cases, a rapist won't just rape once, he'll repeat his behaviour. Life in prison prevents more rapes, and by extension, prevents the necessity of many abortions. I think that hopefully, one day, through these means, this conversation will become totally invalid, as there won't be a need for the vast majority of abortions.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• randomness - I'm curious about your views. If it's "just a clump of cells", why do you "find it horrid for people to use abortion as a form of birth control?" If they're just getting rid of cells, what difference does it make? Why should there be no more abortions?
   
  BTW, a negligible percentage of abortions are due to rape. Somewhere south of 1%. >97% of abortions are for reasons having nothing to do with rape, incest, or health.

  • Report
  

  by angus1 on October 10th, 2009

• Well, I find people who have the kind of attitude involved to be horrid. It's the whole "I could easily prevent this, but I'm not going to, and then I'm going to try and sweep it under the rug afterward" attitude. I think that if a problem can be prevented, and you KNOW how to prevent it, and you are ABLE to prevent it, yet you don't, you're a lazy, shameful person. It doesn't only apply to abortion for me. It applies to any problem. It's like people who know that smoking causes lung cancer, but instead of quitting smoking, they keep doing it, and then end up with lung cancer later. They saw a potential problem, they saw how to prevent it, they were able to prevent it, and yet they did nothing. Am I a bit more understandable now? I apologise if I am still unclear, I am not as good at explaining myself over the internet as I am verbally.
  -
  I know that only a small percentage of abortions are due to rape/incest/health reasons. I think that we need to do something to reduce

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• the number of other abortions, and that something, in my eyes at least, is education. One reason I think something needs to be done is money. I have a feeling that it would be much cheaper to teach a kid to use birth control than it would be to fund abortions.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• I know what you mean, randomness. It's people holding a careless attitude toward life that bothers you. That's something that can be very disturbing to us humans upon reflection.
  -
  I don't really think that it's public school's responsibility to teach kids about birth control. Parents should do that, in my opinion. I really don't want to sit in a classroom while my teacher puts a condom on a banana, no thank you.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• I see what you mean about the public school sex-ed thing NICK, unfortunately, I do think that sex-ed needs to be compulsory in class. Why? Because SO many parents do not teach their children sex-ed, or teach them incorrectly. For example, I have a friend who was never taught sex-ed in school, but her parents were fundamentalist christians, and thought that teaching her about sex at a young age was 'immoral'. When she got her first period, she thought she was dying, as no one had ever told her about it before. She had no idea what sex was, and so she had no idea what she was feeling when she hit puberty, and why she was feeling it. Until she got to high school, and other kids informed her, she had no idea what condoms were, or what the pill was. There needs to be sex-ed programs in schools simply because there are a LOT of parents out there like hers, who do a terrible job of teaching their kids, or don't teach them at all.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• Holy crap! They didn't teach the poor girl about menstruation. She thought she was dying! That's like Carrie. I don't know if I am what you would call a fundamentalist Christian. I follow all the rules of the Bible and believe what it says, I guess that makes me a "fundamentalist". But teaching ABOUT sex is different than teaching kids it's okay to have sex as long as it's protected. And that's what I fear sex education is amounting to nowadays and even more so in the future.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• Mmm well, in the eyes of some, it IS okay to have sex, as long as it's protected. I think that the sex education I had in school was fairly good, we had the basic biology stuff, then information about protection, STD's and pregnancy, and then we had a supplementary program about 'waiting' and such. While I didn't really agree with the last segment, I suppose that it was good to have it for balance.
  -
  Also, it's been proven that teaching kids to abstain in sex ed programs in schools, and not teaching them how to protect themselves when they DO have sex, does not actually prevent kids from having sex. Kids with this kind of sex-education tend to have sex a year or so later (on average) than other kids, but when they do have sex, they are far less likely to use condoms or birth control, and consequently more likely to be teenage parents or have abortions. Teaching kids everything about sex really is necessary, in my eyes.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• I just think it's dangerous to separate the biology of it from the emotions when they "educate" these kids on sex. I remember in my sex ed unit in high school we had a girl start crying when the teacher talked about oral sex. I shudder just remembering that. Girls are so crazy...
  -
  I never really needed to be "taught" about birth control. I thought that stuff was common knowledge. Haven't these people heard of condoms and birth control pills? If kids are to truly abstain it has to be a personal decision, otherwise they will never stand by it. I think girls are INFINITELY more likely to give in and do what they don;t want to do. It makes me sad.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• What? Why was she crying?? I'm confused, did she object to the act, was that what upset her?
  -
  Lots of people haven't heard about birth control and condoms. I also thought it would be common knowledge, I mean, one kid finds out, they tell other kids, those kids tell other kids, etc. However, during sex-ed class, I discovered that a lot of kids don't actually know anything about it. There were kids that thought that you couldn't get pregnant on you first time, or that using two condoms at once was a good idea. And anyway, I think it's better to have a teacher tell kids about birth control and condoms, so that they get accurate information, as opposed to schoolyard gossip.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

• She was crying because she performed oral sex on multiple guys, and I guess she felt guilty. It really baffles me. I don't really care about girls having sex if they feel it's right for them to do, they have no problem with it. It's sick that so many young girls are doing things they find immoral to please men. And then they have all this guilt and emotional baggage about it. I see it all the time.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 10th, 2009

• Oh... so she was upset that she'd been performing oral sex on lots of guys? Mmmm it sounds as if she is so upset because she didn't do this for her, she did it to please other people. I think that the sex-ed needs to be introduced before this happens, at a young age. Not a detailed sex-ed, but a basic "Don't do anything to please people" and "Sex won't make a guy love you" kind of thing. Hopefully it could prevent some cases like her. It makes me sad also, that girls end up in this kind of situation... Perhaps an early 'talking to' would have given her the confidence to stand by the things she considers to be moral, and to not compromise her morals for other people.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on October 10th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• In the context in which the question is asked, the mother is choosing to kill her baby for economic reasons. The same motivation as the father who's been laid off. 100% of the time, killing one's child for economic reasons is wrong.

  • Report
  

  by angus1 on November 10th, 2009

• true enough they can always be adopted.

  • Report
  

  by MasterS on November 10th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments