{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/10/2013 6:56:21 AM
48
-
But this poll is for sensible people.
-
Murder has never been "sensible."
-
1. Yes it has. 2. Not murder.
-
Lol, if you were sensible you wouldn't have unprotected sex in the first place.
-
And -blam!- victims who are left with children?
-
Ever heard of emergency contraception?
-
So basically your saying kill it earlier?
-
Contraception prevents fertilization, it doesn't kill a child.
-
Then why did you say adoption just before? What's you opinion on abortion, why are you against it?
-
I didn't say anything about adoption, but yes that is better than killing a child that has the right to life. That is why I am against it.
-
Confused sorry, a few people are replying with me. So when does the baby count as a life? When it born? When it's a fetus? When the sperm cell first makes contact with the egg?
-
Science, as yet, is unable to answer this. Which is why the logical moral stance to take is anti-abortion. At least until more solid findings are unearthed.
-
Why is that the "moral" and "logical" point of view. Their both subjective views which vary from different people. Is it logical for a 16 year old to raise a child? Is it morally right for you to choose what others do to their bodies?
-
Because we cannot definitively determine when life begins, the objectively logical stance to take is to be against abortion altogether. Assuming you are against murder, of course. Otherwise you are exercising a blatant double standard.
-
Haha, are you a vegetarian? There is no double standard with being for abortion and against murder. You yourself said scientists don't know when life starts. You can't base this of morales and logic because there's no evidence behind it. That's your point of view, everyone's entitled to one.
-
You're contradicting yourself. If there is no evidence as to when life begins, we have to accept that it could be any stage of conception. It's a similar case to the state of superposition. If we do not know the definite state or outcome, we are resigned to the possibility that it is any of the candidates. I don't think you understand me so I'm probably going to end this here unless you post something that implies you grasp my points. All the information needed is in my previous posts, so I suggest going back and re-reading them. I know I can be a bit nebulous sometimes.
-
The moment of conception, when the sperm hits that egg.
-
Extreme cases like that are obviously the exception. Of course the victim is still free to give the child up for adoption. Totally irrelevant when discussing the other 99.99% though.
-
Having unprotected sex is stupid, that's agreed. But should that be able ruin the girls life?
-
I said she is able to give the baby up for adoption.
-
Didn't you mention emergency contraception?
-
Saruman did
-
-
Abortion is still a sensible action once-pregnant.
-
Address my point please.
