New
???
yes
19.7%
14
no
80.3%
57
71 votes
Aug 24, 2014 2:19 PM
#1
If she is the one who created that life then she might have a right to destroy it as well. there are a lot of stories when mother kills her baby as soon as its born. whatever reasons are (financial problems, psychological problems, other problems) usually intollerant society condenm such womens as soon as possible, but is it really all black or white? if you growing something inside your own private body with your own resources arent its you who's in charge of what to do with it next? arent its womens decision if she wants to have (and feed) that burden or not? who are society to force women to create a life and then feed it with her own resources? If our modern society sees abortions as rightful choice of women who is the owner of her body why society dont seeing this as another form of abortion? arent its the same? whats the difference between killing feetus before birth or after birth? is it really makes any difference? so, should such a womens be condemned and/or punished? or it is just another form of abortion and supposed to be rightful womens choice? give us your opinion about this complicated matter. *********************************** dear moderators, I know this topic is very delicate but I do believe MAL society is mature enough to discuss any topic. It was prooven many times that we as a society are mature enough and we can handle any difficult topics. so please dont take this serious topic as some "troll tread" because it is not. If you happened to see something that looks like "bait", please just pm me and I will correct that sentence which you happened to see as a bait, because no baits are intended in this tread. it is all serious. please understand. your dear Siscon2000. |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 2:21 PM
#2
Just think of it as a late term abortion |
[size=200]MAL AVATAR SYSTEM BLOWS |
Aug 24, 2014 2:21 PM
#3
Hell no. .-. |
Aug 24, 2014 2:29 PM
#4
but please can you discuss? why not? then why it is ok to have abortion? (which is the same thing(?)) |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 2:30 PM
#5
Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby |
Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
Aug 24, 2014 2:33 PM
#6
Just because she created a life, doesn't make it hers. Mogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby And what they said |
Aug 24, 2014 2:33 PM
#7
Mogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby but its still in debt for women for creating it and birthing it. she still should have right to cancel it for its debt. |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 2:33 PM
#8
Aug 24, 2014 2:37 PM
#9
Siscon2000 said: Mogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby but its still in debt for women for creating it and birthing it. she still should have right to cancel it for its debt. Having a child should be rewarding for both the mother and child. And because the mother brought the baby to this world she owes it to look after it so it goes both way. If she didn't want it, she should've had an abortion earlier |
Aug 24, 2014 2:42 PM
#10
Lime_ said: You're asking if a mother should have a right to kill a human being - like, what did you seriously hope to discuss here??? not just human being but her own creation. it ia a difference between regular human being and your own children who is made by you. and no this is not a troll tread, the question is serious. glowingaway said: Siscon2000 said: Mogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby but its still in debt for women for creating it and birthing it. she still should have right to cancel it for its debt. Having a child should be rewarding for both the mother and child. And because the mother brought the baby to this world she owes it to look after it so it goes both way. If she didn't want it, she should've had an abortion earlier but what if she just wasn't fast enough to do abortion in time? or what if abortions are forbiden in her country? Mod Edit: Removed quote of deleted post. |
sarroushAug 24, 2014 3:04 PM
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 2:43 PM
#11
Aug 24, 2014 2:43 PM
#12
A said: not just human being but her own creation. it ia a difference between regular human being and your own children who is made by you. and no this is not a troll tread, the question is serious. .... what? There is no difference between a "regular human" and "your own child". . they're both regular humans Just because you birthed one doesn't mean you all of a sudden own the rights to kill him/her. . . . . this is completely a troll thread, you're just asking if someone can commit murder |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet |
Aug 24, 2014 2:45 PM
#13
Abortions are forbidden but murder isn't? Sounds harsh. Still, there's such a thing as adoption and care homes. And how can you not notice that you're pregnant? |
Aug 24, 2014 2:47 PM
#14
Lime_ said: No. The purpose of this thread is to discuss why abortion is considered acceptable while this isn't despite the fact that both have similarities. you're just asking if someone can commit murder OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se |
Aug 24, 2014 2:50 PM
#15
JD2411 said: OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se You mean the produce of both the woman and the man (unless it was cloning) |
Aug 24, 2014 2:53 PM
#16
glowingaway said: JD2411 said: OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se You mean the produce of both the woman and the man (unless it was cloning) man puts not enough effort to be accepted as creator. 1min of pleasure =/= 9 monts of hell and pain. |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 2:55 PM
#17
Siscon2000 said: glowingaway said: JD2411 said: OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se You mean the produce of both the woman and the man (unless it was cloning) man puts not enough effort to be accepted as creator. 1min of pleasure =/= 9 monts of hell and pain. but the man has to suffer along with the women as she whines and complains also man has to make money and go to work to satiate her ravenous appetite, lol |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet |
Aug 24, 2014 2:55 PM
#18
Siscon2000 said: glowingaway said: JD2411 said: OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se You mean the produce of both the woman and the man (unless it was cloning) man puts not enough effort to be accepted as creator. 1min of pleasure =/= 9 monts of hell and pain. his genes = his biological child too |
Aug 24, 2014 2:58 PM
#19
Obviously the mum should make the decision before the baby is born She can't just say "nah actually I don't want him" when he's already an independent living human |
Aug 24, 2014 3:00 PM
#20
Lime_ said: Siscon2000 said: glowingaway said: JD2411 said: OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se You mean the produce of both the woman and the man (unless it was cloning) man puts not enough effort to be accepted as creator. 1min of pleasure =/= 9 monts of hell and pain. but the man has to suffer along with the women as she whines and complains also man has to make money and go to work to satiate her ravenous appetite, lol not neccessarily. I mean I wouldn't do that.. like many mens would just fak and disapear. many. also womens whos killing their newborn childrens usually dont have husband nor man. they are usually alone. this is statistics. HiNT74 said: Obviously the mum should make the decision before the baby is born She can't just say "nah actually I don't want him" when he's already an independent living human independant? not really. thats the problem - it wont be independant for 20 more years... |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 3:04 PM
#21
Siscon2000 said: Lime_ said: Siscon2000 said: glowingaway said: JD2411 said: OT: I think that it should be acceptable because it's the woman's produce per se You mean the produce of both the woman and the man (unless it was cloning) man puts not enough effort to be accepted as creator. 1min of pleasure =/= 9 monts of hell and pain. but the man has to suffer along with the women as she whines and complains also man has to make money and go to work to satiate her ravenous appetite, lol not neccessarily. I mean I wouldn't do that.. like many mens would just fak and disapear. many. also womens whos killing their newborn childrens usually dont have husband nor man. they are usually alone. this is statistics. HiNT74 said: Obviously the mum should make the decision before the baby is born She can't just say "nah actually I don't want him" when he's already an independent living human independant? not really. thats the problem - it wont be independant for 20 more years... [CITATION NEEDED] |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet |
Aug 24, 2014 3:12 PM
#23
Thread Cleaned Yes, it's a morbid topic. And yes, some of you might think it's a troll/spam topic, as clearly shown by your quote-chain spamming of "No". I will give the morbid thread a second chance. Please don't spam the thread. If you have nothing to say, close the thread tab and move on. Using 1 word or quote chaining =/= having something to say. |
Aug 24, 2014 3:18 PM
#24
Morals are a construct of culture and society, and have a basis in our biological tendencies, or are based around what we would/wouldn't like to happen to ourselves. If you have a good life or think life is a blessing in general, then talk of taking life away is an averse thought to you. Talk of taking a childs life away even more so because of the instinct to protect children. So, depending on the culture, a mother could "morally" have a right to kill her child, but there are none which condone infanticide that currently exist to my knowledge. |
[size=200]MAL AVATAR SYSTEM BLOWS |
Aug 24, 2014 3:22 PM
#25
DerpHole said: The yanomami tribe do it. SourceMorals are a construct of culture and society, and have a basis in our biological tendencies, or are based around what we would/wouldn't like to happen to ourselves. If you have a good life or think life is a blessing in general, then talk of taking life away is an averse thought to you. Talk of taking a childs life away even more so because of the instinct to protect children. So, depending on the culture, a mother could "morally" have a right to kill her child, but there are none which condone infanticide that currently exist to my knowledge. |
Aug 24, 2014 3:29 PM
#26
Most people have a rather arbitrary view on the beginning of life, leading to some oddly ardent, deeply seated ideas about morality that they can't rationally explain. One of these ideas is that there is a cutoff point when life spontaneously arises, when some non-moral cellular organism becomes a "human being". Different such points have been suggested, such as conception, when the fetus develops consciousness, when the fetus is able to move, when the fetus is born, etc. All of these share the fundamental problem of arbitrariness. For example, if a baby is about to be born, but still in the womb, can he be killed? There is no split second when it could be determined that a baby spontaneously achieves consciousness--unlike video games, things develop over time. Then there are problems that science have brought forth, such as that there are very often multiple zygotes that enter the same embryo, that sometimes split into multiple potential fetuses and recombine, thus challenging the idea that there is a soul for every zygote at conception. Another idea is that fetuses have increasing moral value as they develop and mature. However, the peak maturity of any human being is around 25 years of age, and no one would suggest that a 10 year old is worth less than a 25 year old adult. So this theory also requires an arbitrary cutoff, whether at birth or any other point. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Aug 24, 2014 3:33 PM
#27
katsucats said: Most people have a rather arbitrary view on the beginning of life, leading to some oddly ardent, deeply seated ideas about morality that they can't rationally explain. One of these ideas is that there is a cutoff point when life spontaneously arises, when some non-moral cellular organism becomes a "human being". Different such points have been suggested, such as conception, when the fetus develops consciousness, when the fetus is able to move, when the fetus is born, etc. All of these share the fundamental problem of arbitrariness. For example, if a baby is about to be born, but still in the womb, can he be killed? There is no split second when it could be determined that a baby spontaneously achieves consciousness--unlike video games, things develop over time. Then there are problems that science have brought forth, such as that there are very often multiple zygotes that enter the same embryo, that sometimes split into multiple potential fetuses and recombine, thus challenging the idea that there is a soul for every zygote at conception. Another idea is that fetuses have increasing moral value as they develop and mature. However, the peak maturity of any human being is around 25 years of age, and no one would suggest that a 10 year old is worth less than a 25 year old adult. So this theory also requires an arbitrary cutoff, whether at birth or any other point. So is it morally ok/right for mothers to kill their newborn child? Maybe I didn't look close enough. |
Aug 24, 2014 3:33 PM
#28
DerpHole said: Indian tribes often do it, because in a hunter/gathering society, there is a "carrying capacity" for how many members a hunting ground could support. And to have too many non-contributing members is to invite starvation upon the entire tribe. Members that are deemed weak or have no potential contributing value are put to death.So, depending on the culture, a mother could "morally" have a right to kill her child, but there are none which condone infanticide that currently exist to my knowledge. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Aug 24, 2014 3:42 PM
#29
glowingaway said: That's a difficult question to answer, but the tl;dr would be that 'morality' is based on an emotional response, and it makes no real sense to tell other people what they can or cannot do based on some feeling that you have. As to whether it is 'morally' okay, I can tell you with a straight face what I feel about it, but I can't prescribe what you should. Therefore, this is a question I cannot reasonably answer.katsucats said: So is it morally ok/right for mothers to kill their newborn child?Most people have a rather arbitrary view on the beginning of life, leading to some oddly ardent, deeply seated ideas about morality that they can't rationally explain. One of these ideas is that there is a cutoff point when life spontaneously arises, when some non-moral cellular organism becomes a "human being". Different such points have been suggested, such as conception, when the fetus develops consciousness, when the fetus is able to move, when the fetus is born, etc. All of these share the fundamental problem of arbitrariness. For example, if a baby is about to be born, but still in the womb, can he be killed? There is no split second when it could be determined that a baby spontaneously achieves consciousness--unlike video games, things develop over time. Then there are problems that science have brought forth, such as that there are very often multiple zygotes that enter the same embryo, that sometimes split into multiple potential fetuses and recombine, thus challenging the idea that there is a soul for every zygote at conception. Another idea is that fetuses have increasing moral value as they develop and mature. However, the peak maturity of any human being is around 25 years of age, and no one would suggest that a 10 year old is worth less than a 25 year old adult. So this theory also requires an arbitrary cutoff, whether at birth or any other point. Maybe I didn't look close enough. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Aug 24, 2014 3:51 PM
#30
katsucats said: Most people have a rather arbitrary view on the beginning of life, leading to some oddly ardent, deeply seated ideas about morality that they can't rationally explain. One of these ideas is that there is a cutoff point when life spontaneously arises, when some non-moral cellular organism becomes a "human being". Different such points have been suggested, such as conception, when the fetus develops consciousness, when the fetus is able to move, when the fetus is born, etc. All of these share the fundamental problem of arbitrariness. For example, if a baby is about to be born, but still in the womb, can he be killed? There is no split second when it could be determined that a baby spontaneously achieves consciousness--unlike video games, things develop over time. Then there are problems that science have brought forth, such as that there are very often multiple zygotes that enter the same embryo, that sometimes split into multiple potential fetuses and recombine, thus challenging the idea that there is a soul for every zygote at conception. Another idea is that fetuses have increasing moral value as they develop and mature. However, the peak maturity of any human being is around 25 years of age, and no one would suggest that a 10 year old is worth less than a 25 year old adult. So this theory also requires an arbitrary cutoff, whether at birth or any other point. Usually it's when the baby could technically be born and survive, about 24 weeks into pregnancy. At that point the baby isn't dependent on the mother to survive and so imo has a right to life. I agree that 25 years old is the peak maturity level. If you had to choose to kill almost everyone in the world, it would be best to leave the 25-year-olds. |
Aug 24, 2014 4:00 PM
#31
DerpHole said: So, depending on the culture, a mother could "morally" have a right to kill her child, but there are none which condone infanticide that currently exist to my knowledge. it was such cultures. like in ancient sparta peoples been throwing childrens from big mountain if they were weak and had no potential as warriors. it was normal in every way. |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 4:05 PM
#32
Aug 24, 2014 4:06 PM
#33
Red_Keys said: Siscon2000 said: It takes two people to create a child.If she is the one who created that life so you say father (should) have right to kill it as well? |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 4:59 PM
#34
Siscon2000 said: At that point the child can be given awayMogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby but its still in debt for women for creating it and birthing it. she still should have right to cancel it for its debt. |
Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
Aug 24, 2014 5:31 PM
#35
Mogu-sama said: Siscon2000 said: At that point the child can be given awayMogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby but its still in debt for women for creating it and birthing it. she still should have right to cancel it for its debt. but then taxpayers will have to pay for it (I m taxpayer so i m concerned). also it will increase overpopulation in the world. also some peoples have ambitions to not share their genes with others. so such peoples might want to destroy their genes instead of giving them away... |
please sell me the condom, mister I would like to fuck my sister! condoms really worth to keep I will fuck her very deep! could you be my condom keeper? so I could try to fuck her deeper! please think I m stupid but please dont think I m a troll. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://protpisaenglish.blogspot.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzn0J8cfrY |
Aug 24, 2014 6:45 PM
#37
Siscon2000 said: If she is the one who created that life then she might have a right to destroy it as well. there are a lot of stories when mother kills her baby as soon as its born. whatever reasons are (financial problems, psychological problems, other problems) usually intollerant society condenm such womens as soon as possible, but is it really all black or white? if you growing something inside your own private body with your own resources arent its you who's in charge of what to do with it next? arent its womens decision if she wants to have (and feed) that burden or not? who are society to force women to create a life and then feed it with her own resources? If our modern society sees abortions as rightful choice of women who is the owner of her body why society dont seeing this as another form of abortion? arent its the same? whats the difference between killing feetus before birth or after birth? is it really makes any difference? so, should such a womens be condemned and/or punished? or it is just another form of abortion and supposed to be rightful womens choice? give us your opinion about this complicated matter. *********************************** dear moderators, I know this topic is very delicate but I do believe MAL society is mature enough to discuss any topic. It was prooven many times that we as a society are mature enough and we can handle any difficult topics. so please dont take this serious topic as some "troll tread" because it is not. If you happened to see something that looks like "bait", please just pm me and I will correct that sentence which you happened to see as a bait, because no baits are intended in this tread. it is all serious. please understand. your dear Siscon2000. katsucats said: Most people have a rather arbitrary view on the beginning of life, leading to some oddly ardent, deeply seated ideas about morality that they can't rationally explain. One of these ideas is that there is a cutoff point when life spontaneously arises, when some non-moral cellular organism becomes a "human being". Different such points have been suggested, such as conception, when the fetus develops consciousness, when the fetus is able to move, when the fetus is born, etc. All of these share the fundamental problem of arbitrariness. For example, if a baby is about to be born, but still in the womb, can he be killed? There is no split second when it could be determined that a baby spontaneously achieves consciousness--unlike video games, things develop over time. Then there are problems that science have brought forth, such as that there are very often multiple zygotes that enter the same embryo, that sometimes split into multiple potential fetuses and recombine, thus challenging the idea that there is a soul for every zygote at conception. Another idea is that fetuses have increasing moral value as they develop and mature. However, the peak maturity of any human being is around 25 years of age, and no one would suggest that a 10 year old is worth less than a 25 year old adult. So this theory also requires an arbitrary cutoff, whether at birth or any other point. Stopped taking your comment seriously the moment you mentioned souls. It's ethically not acceptable to kill human beings, end of story. Society determined those rules and that is the final answer. Abortion on the other hand is no murder but the cancellation of pregnancy by removing potential human life. Using our biological knowledge, humanity approximated the moment that such potential becomes an actual human being, granting him or her human rights thus killing it being ethically and legally wrong. Going by the logic of katsucats, masturbation would be questionable because of the death of countless potential lives. |
VanguardWolfAug 24, 2014 6:56 PM
Aug 24, 2014 6:47 PM
#38
This is one of the dumbest ideas ever. Even dumber than AfterM*A*S*H. |
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Aug 24, 2014 6:57 PM
#39
I don't get why everyone's so butthurt. Newborns are basically the same as they were a month before, except now they're outside. When does a chicken's egg become food? |
Aug 24, 2014 7:55 PM
#40
No, and killing a newborn is not the same as having an abortion. |
Aug 24, 2014 7:58 PM
#41
VanguardWolf said: You stopped taking my posts seriously because I presented a perspective that people hold? You're a funny guy.Siscon2000 said: If she is the one who created that life then she might have a right to destroy it as well. there are a lot of stories when mother kills her baby as soon as its born. whatever reasons are (financial problems, psychological problems, other problems) usually intollerant society condenm such womens as soon as possible, but is it really all black or white? if you growing something inside your own private body with your own resources arent its you who's in charge of what to do with it next? arent its womens decision if she wants to have (and feed) that burden or not? who are society to force women to create a life and then feed it with her own resources? If our modern society sees abortions as rightful choice of women who is the owner of her body why society dont seeing this as another form of abortion? arent its the same? whats the difference between killing feetus before birth or after birth? is it really makes any difference? so, should such a womens be condemned and/or punished? or it is just another form of abortion and supposed to be rightful womens choice? give us your opinion about this complicated matter. *********************************** dear moderators, I know this topic is very delicate but I do believe MAL society is mature enough to discuss any topic. It was prooven many times that we as a society are mature enough and we can handle any difficult topics. so please dont take this serious topic as some "troll tread" because it is not. If you happened to see something that looks like "bait", please just pm me and I will correct that sentence which you happened to see as a bait, because no baits are intended in this tread. it is all serious. please understand. your dear Siscon2000. katsucats said: Most people have a rather arbitrary view on the beginning of life, leading to some oddly ardent, deeply seated ideas about morality that they can't rationally explain. One of these ideas is that there is a cutoff point when life spontaneously arises, when some non-moral cellular organism becomes a "human being". Different such points have been suggested, such as conception, when the fetus develops consciousness, when the fetus is able to move, when the fetus is born, etc. All of these share the fundamental problem of arbitrariness. For example, if a baby is about to be born, but still in the womb, can he be killed? There is no split second when it could be determined that a baby spontaneously achieves consciousness--unlike video games, things develop over time. Then there are problems that science have brought forth, such as that there are very often multiple zygotes that enter the same embryo, that sometimes split into multiple potential fetuses and recombine, thus challenging the idea that there is a soul for every zygote at conception. Another idea is that fetuses have increasing moral value as they develop and mature. However, the peak maturity of any human being is around 25 years of age, and no one would suggest that a 10 year old is worth less than a 25 year old adult. So this theory also requires an arbitrary cutoff, whether at birth or any other point. Stopped taking your comment seriously the moment you mentioned souls. It's ethically not acceptable to kill human beings, end of story. Society determined those rules and that is the final answer. Abortion on the other hand is no murder but the cancellation of pregnancy by removing potential human life. Using our biological knowledge, humanity approximated the moment that such potential becomes an actual human being, granting him or her human rights thus killing it being ethically and legally wrong. Going by the logic of katsucats, masturbation would be questionable because of the death of countless potential lives. Society is a feedback loop made of individuals. If society at some given time is the final answer, then what Martin Luther King did was wrong. There is no scientific definition for when some cells become a "human being", this is purely a cultural preference. You're just talking shit trying to sound smart. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Aug 24, 2014 8:00 PM
#42
Of course not. If she wanted to get rid of it, she should have aborted it. Don't want it after birth? Put it up for adoption or something. Nobody should have the right to take anybody's live. |
I'M GONE NOW |
Aug 24, 2014 10:10 PM
#43
Gogetters said: No, and killing a newborn is not the same as having an abortion. What's the big difference though? Mogu-sama said: Siscon2000 said: At that point the child can be given awayMogu-sama said: Once the baby is born it is no longer physically dependent on the mother without possibility of timely transfer So, yes, it's immoral to kill a newborn baby but its still in debt for women for creating it and birthing it. she still should have right to cancel it for its debt. Yes, only to become someone else's problem. What if no one wants it? Then is it okay? It's not like the baby can live on its own. |
"Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Aug 24, 2014 10:13 PM
#44
RedRoseFring said: At this point it's not really relying on her so she has no right to kill it.Gogetters said: No, and killing a newborn is not the same as having an abortion. What's the big difference though? RedRoseFring said: Then she can ditch it. It's not direct murder so it's okay (not morally though).Yes, only to become someone else's problem. What if no one wants it? Then is it okay? It's not like the baby can live on its own. |
I'M GONE NOW |
Aug 24, 2014 10:16 PM
#45
AnarchicSloth said: not really relying on her They grow up so fast. |
[size=200]MAL AVATAR SYSTEM BLOWS |
Aug 24, 2014 10:18 PM
#46
Aug 24, 2014 10:18 PM
#47
DerpHole said: *should have said biologically or some shit.AnarchicSloth said: not really relying on her They grow up so fast. |
I'M GONE NOW |
Aug 24, 2014 10:20 PM
#48
AnarchicSloth said: ]At this point it's not really relying on her so she has no right to kill it. But neither is it relying on anyone else, and she was the one that birthed it. It just looks like a long-winded way to absolve her of responsibility. Then she can ditch it. It's not direct murder so it's okay (not morally though). I see. Only if murder is indirect though planned is it okay. |
"Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Aug 24, 2014 10:21 PM
#49
RedRoseFring said: Indirect > Direct.AnarchicSloth said: ]At this point it's not really relying on her so she has no right to kill it. But neither is it relying on anyone else, and she was the one that birthed it. It just looks like a long-winded way to absolve her of responsibility. Then she can ditch it. It's not direct murder so it's okay (not morally though). I see. Only if murder is indirect though planned is it okay. |
I'M GONE NOW |
Aug 24, 2014 10:25 PM
#50
AnarchicSloth said: RedRoseFring said: Indirect > Direct.AnarchicSloth said: ]At this point it's not really relying on her so she has no right to kill it. But neither is it relying on anyone else, and she was the one that birthed it. It just looks like a long-winded way to absolve her of responsibility. Then she can ditch it. It's not direct murder so it's okay (not morally though). I see. Only if murder is indirect though planned is it okay. I see. This sort of crap will kill the planet faster than climate change ever could. |
"Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
More topics from this board
» Can a Gen Z/alpha can survive the 80sKisaragi_Toka - 11 hours ago |
41 |
by Lucifrost
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Are you the type to offer to pay or split the bill?justmaya - 7 hours ago |
13 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )KiraraFan - May 7 |
338 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Merry Christmas/Happy HolidaysSushiSuperLover - Yesterday |
17 |
by Serafos
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Regarding Honda, Nissan, and Mitsubishi: a decision to merge.9765 - 2 hours ago |
11 |
by fleurbleue
»»
8 minutes ago |