Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
Hahaha, you're really not in the position to call anyone on 'holier than thou' attitude.
So by your marvellous logic it's also ok to kill a person in coma because he won't experience anything. It's developing INTO A human, and by killing it, you're denying it a chance to live a human life, and thus my previous statement. No one should have the right to decide whether or not someone should get a chance at life. Abortion is a sickening, disgusting immoral murder.
And where did i ever say i approve of beating up gays? I've witnessed a gay dude getting beat up, it was pretty bad
|
I assumed that you approved of it in the european country poll thread with this comment " Hahaha lol. It was kinda similar here in Serbia lol. Thats what they get for not listening to the public and the majority (I assume Georgians were also against having a parade)" But I may have misinterpreted it.
I'll copy paste what I said about it in the thread
They did have it coming. They were dumb to even have a parade there. It makes about as much sense to have a parade in Georgia as it does in Iran or Saudi Arabia. They knew general public was against it, so what did they expect to happen ? That's what i said 'lol'. Not because they were attacked, but because they actually attempted to start the parade.
There is a very important distinction between abortion and killing someone in a coma. With some people, the brain is still active, even though they aren't 'awake'. An old relative of mine got a heart attack, and was unconciouss for a few days, but when he woke up, he could remember what the doctors around him had talked about.
But you said ''it wont experience anything', that's not the situation you described there. There are lots of cases where humans are in vegetable state of coma, they wouldn't experience anything as well, so we should be allowed to kill them too? I mean, they won't experience anything, but they are a living human.
People in comas have had consiousness, and if they would some day wake up, they would probably experience a continued conciousnes. Personally, the only time that I'm in favour of dropping life support is when it can be proven that all brain cells are dead. Early fetuses have never been concious, and have never had a brain to be concious with. It's a totally different situation.
You did not address my point. By killing a developing human life inside a womb, you deny him a chance to live it's life. That's very similar to murder. The fact is as simple as that
|
|
I did adress your point. Even if there is zero brain activity, but the cells are living, the person has had a conciousness, and would likely experience the same conciousness if his brain was restarted. So killing him would be wrong. However, if the brain cells are dead, the person is already irreversibly gone, so no need to keep dragging it out.
I'm not denying anyone anything, because 'it' is not a 'him' yet. By not aborting a fetus, I'm denying a second kid that could have been born under better circumstances the chance to live. Both kids are equally 'sentient', even if only one of them has made it to the fetus stage yet.
|
So killing a person in vegetative state is wrong, but killing an unborn child is ok, because it's not a fully developed human yet?
And what the hell are you talking about in your second paragraph ? What 2nd kid? You keep avoiding my point. ''It not a him yet'' It's GOING TO BE HIM in few weeks, and by killing him, YOU DENY them a chance at becoming a fully developed human being and thus you deny him a chance at living his life. You keep arguing whether or not it's a human or just a lump of cells we're talking about when that's completely irrelevant to my point - denying a chance to live. When you take the seed out of ground, you deny it a chance to become a plant, despite it not being a full plant yet. I really don't know how to make this more simple to you. It seems to me you're arguing just for the sake of your liberal agenda
|
Just a disclaimer before I reply. Liberlism is the ideology of as small a state as possible, market forces running everything, and individual freedom as high as possible. I'm saying this, because Americans seem to use it to simply mean: "the opposite of conservative" or "giving the stare liberties to control people". I know you're Serbian, but if you've been watching a lot of american media, you could get the definition of the word wrong. (Even though liberalism is ideologically for abortion in this case).
The difference between you and me, is that as long as the fetus is not consious, I don't make a distinction between it and a separate sperm and egg. Therefore, I have no problems with couples storing fertilized eggs in a freezer (if the father gets a vasectomy, so thay could still have children if they want). I'll try to be more clear with the example in my previous post. Since a separate sperm and egg are pretty much equal to an early fetus, and say a couple who are not ready for kids ends up with the girl pregnant. They could abort the fetus, and wait until better times. Or they could keep the kid and let it be born during unfavorable circumstances. In my world, there is no competititon if you have the kid, then the kid that could have been born during better times is denied his chance at life, and the parents' lives are severly impacted as well.
Why I think your "all those sperms and eggs that die naturally every year were meant to" statement is wrong is because it's easy to remove any random elements. Let's say I'm a doctor at a fertility clinic, and I have taken a sperm and an egg, and have them stored in different test tubes. Now it's fully within my power if those two ever develop into a person. By choosing not to unite them and put them in a mother, I am denying them the right to become a person. Now where it gets interesting is this. What if I unite them and don't put them in a mother, but simply pour it all out in the sink? What if I put them in a mother, but she comes back two days later regretting it? Why are any of those situations different? Unless you belive that it gets a "soul" when they are united, you shouldn't have any moral objections to any of this.
