Of course...if you don't know the difference between a developing fetus and how it uses the woman's body compared to a baby that can be cared for by anyone I'm afraid you either can't "get it" or don't want to "get it".
But you realize how the premise you are putting into this argument is basically the same thing that this argument is trying to determine, correct?
If I started arguing with you about it, it would go on and on in circles forever. You claim there is a difference between unborn and born because of a woman having to use her body to take care of it. I then argue that that's not true because a woman should have an obligation to take care of it, using my analogy comparing a born baby to an unborn one. You then claim that's not valid because there is a difference between unborn and born, because of a woman having to use her body to take care of it. And so the circle starts all over again.
The only circle is of YOUR making...an escape from the facts maybe??? ...if you don't know the difference between a developing fetus and how it uses the woman's body compared to a baby that can be cared for by anyone I'm afraid you either can't "get it" or don't want to "get it".
You realize the title of YOUR thread is "A woman has an obligation to give birth" She doesn't and you have NEVER shown where or why she does....
But we are talking about a more specific argument right now, the woman with a baby on a boat analogy.
Are you claiming that the difference (you are talking about here) between a born baby and an unborn fetus isn't that it uses the woman's body, but rather how it uses her body? Otherwise, I am not sure I am understanding you. You're just not being specific enough.
Whether a woman is on a boat or not has NOTHING to do with her relationship to a fetus... On a boat ! LOL...how about a space ship?? Or a hot air balloon ?? LOLOLO
Yes, the poster's argument is fully in line with the nature of reality. Hold it right there? An obligation -- Why? That is because you never told why life (the pregnant woman) has "an obligation" to take care of non-life (the fetus) by sacrificing her own happiness and values. What even is an "unborn"? Ridiculous.
HAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, I normally would not "ha-ha" in all caps on a forum, but this was the most idiotic analogy I have heard any anti-abortionist ever make. For you to take a baby with you on a 9-month-boat-voyage you need it to be born first. When it is born, it is way past the state of being a fetus and is now an actualised life. Thus you cannot just throw it off board. The only thing that remotely resembles pregnancy in this pathetic exvuse of an analogy is 9 months and... I do n-t know..... Water, maybe. I make a better analogy completely off the cuff against your position; let's make you ejaculate in a cup and then tell you to carry that cup with you everywhere and anywhere you go for 9 months and then throw in you jail if you decide to tnrow it. Those sperms are unborn kids, you know. You now have an obligation to look after them. Oh, we probably have to beat you up every once in a while too just to give you a complete simulation. I think you missed your own target. If she gave birth, she no longer needs - nor can she have - an abortion. How far out are they? Are there crocodiles and sharks? Is she a professional rower? To be honest, they'd both die way before reaching land. Good luck rowing a boat right after childbirth and good luck giving yourself and the baby the aftercare you both need. Anyways, why can't we just stick to reality or at least make analogies that make sense?
I agree with the premise but would add one thing.....I would not let the sperm donor off the hook by any means. The Culture has a responsibility to shun dead beat Dads to oblivion!! They MUST be held responsible for the childs financial well being regardless of their immaturity!
So: 1. Shun the man for having sex. 2. Force the pregnant woman to give birth against her will. 3. Shun the man who now is a father again for not being there for his child that he never wanted. 4. Make the mother take care of the child she never wanted on her own and call her an irresponsiblre slut for being a single mother. Is this how you want to treat people? Is this what you want children to grow up with? Abortion is good. Deal with it.
Very obvious.... it seems it is all about personal wants, neglecting the life of another. This is what happens when narcissisms take control of our culture. The weakest lose. Here it is the "children". We were all children once. This is the opposite of the Christian values once embraced. Those children grow up minus a Mother and Father, often angry and alone. Tell me how that makes things better? Of course killing them before they are born is your solution. Sick.
So your solution is to force women to bring these children into the world so they can be angry and alone??? That sounds very cruel.
Yes, bravo! All that matters is You and Your life. We cannot demand another person lives their life for anyone else but themselves. When it comes to abortion it is really simple because the only life involved in the decision is that of the unwillingly pregnant woman. First of all, selfishness is not narcissim and secondly, selfishness does not to any extent control our culture. In fact, most people are like you, they advocate altruism and constantly ask the individual to sacrifice themselves to the collective. If it is not "for the nation", it is "to help the poor" and if it is not that, it is "to save the unborn". A fetus is not a child and the fact that we were all children once does not change the fact of the previous. This is an absolutely bs-argument since it is an appeal to emotion. Fantastic! You've finally come out of the closet. If you do not believe in the separation of Church and State, you should move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. They have fully embraced those beautiful Abrahamic values you hold so dear. I thought that Conservatives were supposed to love America, but clearly you do not since your opposition to abortion opposes the very fundamental principles on which America was built; Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. A fetus is not a human being.
It's not that she never wanted it. If THAT was the case, she would have already gotten her tubes tied. No, the fact is she DOES want a baby - it's just a matter of WHEN. "I'll abort this baby now, because I want to have another baby later... at a time more convenient for me..." Besides, Ritter, don't you realize your country imports babies in from other foreign countries? It's not like your country has any surplus of unwanted babies that they can't find a loving home for.
How is that a bad thing? No one should become a parent unless they are ready for it. Sounds like a wise chick to me. What is this supposed to mean and how does adoption relate to what we are talking about?
No one is saying she has to KEEP the baby. After the point of birth, her responsibilities are over. Personally, I wish there was some way she could send it off to an orphanage, and then (re-)adopt it back when she is ready for a child. No reason to toss the cake out of the oven when you are just going to bake one a short time later.
So, force her to be pregnant for 9 months only to give away the baby she has kept and grown inside her? That is just evil.
How dare a woman be forced to grow a baby when she's not going to be able to keep it. Of course, it's entirely her choice whether or not she wants to keep that baby. I think the current law should be changed so she can get it back some time later after she gives it away.
I cannot tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not because you are bouncing all over the place right now.
