Abortion

[Laryal]

I want to point out that not everyone ascribes to Christianity or any other religion. Not everyone believes in a god or gods.

 

I'm going to be very honest here: bringing religion into this debate always screams to me of the "force it down their throats" mindset because no one who uses it ever seems to consider that there are other people out there who don't believe it. Religion, faith, and belief in deities are subjective, individual decisions and it should be kept that way. There is never any good reason for forcing your (general) beliefs on someone else.

 

If it would be unfair for me to force my beliefs on you, why is it okay for you to force your beliefs on me - especially when those beliefs affect my right to control my own body and what happens in it?

 

If you want to make decisions for your body based on your morals and beliefs, that's absolutely fine. But my body is a dictatorship and I'm the dictator, not anyone else. I don't want to be forced to adhere to someone else's beliefs when they don't jive with mine.

 

~~

 

Also, it's worth noting that abstinence doesn't work on the vast majority anymore. Saying 'keep your legs closed' is like treating a stab wound with a used bandaid. We are in a time now when we must accept the fact that people want to have sex for fun and due to that we need a multifaceted approach to sexual education - one that includes abstinence but does not teach only abstinence.

 

Every abortion begins with an unwanted pregnancy. The path to reducing abortion is through more widely available, cheap contraception and better sex ed - because the first and most important step to reducing abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The path to reducing abortions is not through shaming people and illegalizing it (neither will actually make abortion go away, in fact, and driving it underground is infinitely worse than keeping it safe and open).

 

 

 

This is painfully true. People are going to have sex and we have to accept it. The sooner we accept it the sooner we can move toward better methods of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

 

I was not forcing anything down anyone's throat i was stating fact is all. Like i said killing is killing even if the person is unborn. Murder is murder no matter how you look at it. So ok lets take God out of it.Would you kill a person outside the womb? Why is it different then if it is outside or in? what do you all consider life when does it start? you can not make something dead come to life right.So the two cells that join have to be alive for the rest of the person to start living. So if the two cells are alive and start growing in a girl or woman what comes out at birth a human right.So then then it could never have been anything else but human.Not an Animal or veg or min. Human. So what are you doing then in abortion kiling a human being which if it was out of the womb would be considered murder.So why is right for a woman to kill a human inside her then? It is not she is murdering someone else's body.The baby is of it's self a totally a different person am i right? So then if it is a different person then the women and doctors are murdering inocent people who have no voice of their own.Yet people are willing to kill people.But let someone kill an animal's baby that is not born everyone who thinks abortion is right will claw and get anger becouse of an animal lost it's life.Lets get our priorities strait for once in our human lives.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[Obscure_Trash]

A fetus is alive.

A life is a life, no matter how you put it.

A fetus is not a "potential life' because it already is alive.

A fetus is a human being and alive, so abortion is inherently murder.

And...?

 

You keep saying things like this but I've honestly no idea what ultimate point you're trying to make.

 

But let someone kill an animal's baby that is not born everyone who thinks abortion is right will claw and get anger becouse of an animal lost it's life.

 

Er - may I ask for some kind of proof or story where this happened? It sounds like there's a story behind this that I'm missing!

 

I'm sure it's quite possible, but I will say that not everyone who is pro-choice would make this argument because I'm certainly not over here championing for random animal fetus rights. o.o

Edited September 13, 2015 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Eclipseheart]

• Would you kill a person outside the womb?

• Why is it different then if it is outside or in?

• what do you all consider life when does it start?

 

you can not make something dead come to life right.So the two cells that join have to be alive for the rest of the person to start living. So if the two cells are alive and start growing in a girl or woman what comes out at birth a human right.So then then it could never have been anything else but human.Not an Animal or veg or min. Human. So what are you doing then in abortion kiling a human being which if it was out of the womb would be considered murder.So why is right for a woman to kill a human inside her then? It is not she is murdering someone else's body.The baby is of it's self a totally a different person am i right? So then if it is a different person then the women and doctors are murdering inocent people who have no voice of their own.Yet people are willing to kill people.But let someone kill an animal's baby that is not born everyone who thinks abortion is right will claw and get anger becouse of an animal lost it's life.Lets get our  priorities strait for once in our human lives.

(Bullet points are mine, I took out the beginning, added bullet points, and spaced)

 

• No.

• The child cannot survive outside of my womb. Therefore, if it is not able to live outside of my body, it doesn't have the "right to life". The "right to life" doesn’t give someone permission t o use somebody else’s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs even if someone is on a transplant list and they're a perfect donor. It also doesn't permit the right to basically threaten someone else's life, as child bearing is actually quite dangerous at times for the mother. What is a right of life, however, is to not have to be forced to support someone who is imposing upon your body.

• "There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum---sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature." via this.

 

I'd like to point out again, "two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature."

It is right for a woman to abort what is inside her because it is her body. It is not the fetus' body, the fetus is merely growing inside it. It is not the government's body. It is not "God's" body. It is not Baphometh's or Hecate's or Zeus' or Hades' body. It is the woman. She is the only one who has control over her functions and moreover, what she chooses to let live in her body. Yes, you are right in the fact that a baby is a human and has its own body, it cannot even regulate its own body temperature until week 29. It cannot sustain itself outside of the womb. I'll reiterate again: the child cannot live on if it's mother dies. So tell me, what makes this mass of cells that sill isn't developed until the very, very, end of the third trimester a human being? It's DNA? Sure, that does scientifically define a species, but so does consciousness.

 

"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another as defined by the dictionary. Whereas abortion can be defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus."

 

I'd also like to see proof of animal abortions where pro-choice or pro-abortionists get angry, please.

[Laryal]

And...?

 

You keep saying things like this but I've honestly no idea what ultimate point you're trying to make.

 

 

 

Er - may I ask for some kind of proof or story where this happened? It sounds like there's a story behind this that I'm missing!

 

I'm sure it's quite possible, but I will say that not everyone who is pro-choice would make this argument because I'm certainly not over here championing for random animal fetus rights. o.o

Just look on google where you will find them.People getting mad over adused animals then talk about aborting babies like they are nothing important at all.Animals have more rights than an unborn.Why it is becouse animals have no voice so does unborn baby humans. Who will take up for them? I and allot of others on here as well.You can see allot of videos and read about poor baby animals getting hurt we should save them.Where is poor human babies we should save them?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[Eclipseheart]

Just look on google will you will find them.People getting mad over adused animals then talk about aborting babies like they are nothing important at all.Animals have more rights than an unborn.Why it is becouse animals have no voice so does unborn baby humans. Who will take up for them? I and allot of others on here as well.You can see allot of videos and read about poor baby animals getting hurt we should save them.Where is poor human babies we should save them?

Animal abuse and abortion are completely separate topics, I fail to see how they relate. An animal is conscious, it can feel and sense and retain information whereas a fetus cannot.

I'm beginning to think you meant the fact of already born baby animals and unborn fetuses. If a baby was being abused, I can almost certainly vouch that everyone arguing pro-choice/pro-abortion would come to that child's aid.

 

The fact of the matter is, however, that the child/animal was born.

[Laryal]

(Bullet points are mine, I took out the beginning, added bullet points, and spaced)

 

• No.

• The child cannot survive outside of my womb. Therefore, if it is not able to live outside of my body, it doesn't have the "right to life". The "right to life" doesn’t give someone permission t o use somebody else’s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs even if someone is on a transplant list and they're a perfect donor. It also doesn't permit the right to basically threaten someone else's life, as child bearing is actually quite dangerous at times for the mother. What is a right of life, however, is to not have to be forced to support someone who is imposing upon your body.

• "There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum---sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature." via this.

 

I'd like to point out again, "two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature."

It is right for a woman to abort what is inside her because it is her body. It is not the fetus' body, the fetus is merely growing inside it. It is not the government's body. It is not "God's" body. It is not Baphometh's or Hecate's or Zeus' or Hades' body. It is the woman. She is the only one who has control over her functions and moreover, what she chooses to let live in her body. Yes, you are right in the fact that a baby is a human and has its own body, it cannot even regulate its own body temperature until week 29. It cannot sustain itself outside of the womb. I'll reiterate again: the child cannot live on if it's mother dies. So tell me, what makes this mass of cells that sill isn't developed until the very, very, end of the third trimester a human being? It's DNA? Sure, that does scientifically define a species, but so does consciousness.

 

"Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another as defined by the dictionary. Whereas abortion can be defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus."

 

I'd also like to see proof of animal abortions where pro-choice or pro-abortionists get angry, please.

So what you are saying is that the fetus does not have it's own body right?So if it does not have it's own body then what comes out at birth then? Killing is killing no matter how you look at it.I could have been wrong on the animal thing not sure.But it is funny not really that animals have more rights than an unborn baby. So what do you do with the body of the fetus if it has no body of it's own? Then what body does it have?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[Infinis]

I was not forcing anything down anyone's throat i was stating fact is all.

My objection was exclusively to the fact that you brought in God as any kind of reason for someone other than you to do/not do something, not your view that abortion is murder. You are free to do what you want with your body for any reason you choose, but as soon as you start using your individual reason to reduce my right to bodily autonomy it becomes a problem.

 

Would you kill a person outside the womb? Why is it different then if it is outside or in? what do you all consider life when does it start?

 

1 - no

2 - the difference is this: a fetus, up to a certain point, cannot live outside the womb and is wholly dependent on the parent's body and blood/nutrient supply for life to be sustained at all.

 

The parent, on the other hand, is capable of living by itself, independently of another organism's body and blood/nutrient supply. The parent is a person who has developed some sense of self, of who they are as a person.

3 - Eclipseheart's answer is the best one to this question. Even the precursors of a fetus - sperm and egg - are alive (they can't be dead, of course). So...basically...everything's alive until it's dead.

 

you can not make something dead come to life right.

 

You can be dead and be resuscitated as long as resuscitation measures are begun immediately. After about 4-5 minutes though there is so much brain death that even if resuscitation is successful, they have essentially no chance of ever being conscious again.

 

So the two cells that join have to be alive for the rest of the person to start living. So if the two cells are alive and start growing in a girl or woman what comes out at birth a human right.So then then it could never have been anything else but human.Not an Animal or veg or min. Human. So what are you doing then in abortion kiling a human being which if it was out of the womb would be considered murder.

 

No one is debating whether the fetus is alive, because it is. (Unless it dies, which is also possible.)

 

It is not she is murdering someone else's body.The baby is of it's self a totally a different person am i right? So then if it is a different person then the women and doctors are murdering inocent people who have no voice of their own.Yet people are willing to kill people.But let someone kill an animal's baby that is not born everyone who thinks abortion is right will claw and get anger becouse of an animal lost it's life.Lets get our priorities strait for once in our human lives.

 

This isn't about whether it's a separate person or not - anyone who knows basic genetics and reproductive science knows that a fetus is a genetic mix of the two parents. The problems are:

 

-why it's okay to force a person to carry a pregnancy they don't want, because the fetus is living off them (literally)

-why it's okay to sacrifice the parent's wellbeing (mental and/or physical) for the fetus - a fetus they don't want (which is why they're seeking abortion), a fetus which may not even be capable of living outside the womb yet (doesn't it make more sense in this case to save the parent that CAN live?) or which may have anomalies incompatible with life

 

But let someone kill an animal's baby that is not born everyone who thinks abortion is right will claw and get anger becouse of an animal lost it's life.Lets get our priorities strait for once in our human lives.

 

I don't...I feel people should be responsible and not let their animals get pregnant to begin with (spay, neuter, don't let the animal roam, don't let your unfixed males and females in the same place unless you WANT to breed them, etc).

Edited September 13, 2015 by Infinis

[Eclipseheart]

So what you are saying is that the fetus does not have it's own body right?So if it does not have it's own body then what comes out at birth then? Killing is killing no matter how you look at it.I could have been wrong on the animal thing not sure.But it is funny not really that animals have more rights than an unborn baby.

Please read my whole argument, as I'm positive I said

Yes, you are right in the fact that a baby is a human and has its own body, it cannot even regulate its own body temperature until week 29.

 

This is not killing, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing that as it's very clear to me you read what you want to read.

 

You are trying to argue some that has been born, has cognitive functioning and retains information and feeling over something that is unborn, cannot think and function on its own, does not retain information or feeling and is not conscious of what is going on around it. So yes, a born animal does completely have more rights than an unborn child.

[Laryal]

My objection was exclusively to the fact that you brought in God as any kind of reason for someone other than you to do/not do something, not your view that abortion is murder. You are free to do what you want with your body for any reason you choose, but as soon as you start using your individual reason to reduce my right to bodily autonomy it becomes a problem.

 

 

 

1 - no

2 - the difference is this: a fetus, up to a certain point, cannot live outside the womb and is wholly dependent on the parent's body and blood/nutrient supply for life to be sustained at all.

 

The parent, on the other hand, is capable of living by itself, independently of another organism's body and blood/nutrient supply. The parent is a person who has developed some sense of self, of who they are as a person.

3 - Eclipseheart's answer is the best one to this question. Even the precursors of a fetus - sperm and egg - are alive (they can't be dead, of course). So...basically...everything's alive until it's dead. 

 

 

 

You can be dead and be resuscitated as long as resuscitation measures are begun immediately. After about 4-5 minutes though there is so much brain death that even if resuscitation is successful, they have essentially no chance of ever being conscious again.

 

 

 

No one is debating whether the fetus is alive, because it is. (Unless it dies, which is also possible.)

 

 

 

This isn't about whether it's a separate person or not - anyone who knows basic genetics and reproductive science knows that a fetus is a genetic mix of the two parents. The problems are:

 

-why it's okay to force a person to carry a pregnancy they don't want, because the fetus is living off them (literally)

-why it's okay to sacrifice the parent's wellbeing (mental and/or physical) for the fetus - a fetus they don't want (which is why they're seeking abortion), a fetus which may not even be capable of living outside the womb yet (doesn't it make more sense in this case to save the parent that CAN live?) or which may have anomalies incompatible with life

 

 

 

I don't...I feel people should be responsible and not let their animals get pregnant to begin with (spay, neuter, don't let the animal roam, don't let your unfixed males and females in the same place unless you WANT to breed them, etc).

 

But yet the parent was just like the fetus at one point in it's life just like you and me am i right? Then what were we then at that point in time Alive with our own bodies or what? They could save the baby we have the means to do so now and if they do not want it they could give it up for adoption.They have better ways than just killing the baby.

 

 

Let me tell you a story see my mom was sick with rumatic fever when she was with me.The doctors told her she could abort me bu she said no.I am alive and well with cerebral palsy but is my life any more valuanble than any one of you? So all you guys who think killing a baby is good.I would not be here today if you were my mom.See with my life i have changed allot of people's thinking my brother told me if it was not for me he would never had compasion on others like he has had.He siad i touch his life like that. Others said the same if i was not around what would it have been like then? i am afraid allot differnt for my brother and others who are family and others whom i met.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[Eclipseheart]

But yet the parent was just like the fetus at one point in it's life just like you and me am i right? Then what were we then at that point in time Alive with our own bodies or what?

We are a developing mass of cells waiting to be birthed so that we can then gain consciousness and understanding. At birth, we are able to live without our mother (For a period of time, anyways. And even then, our birth mother isn't a necessity.)

 

The tricky thing with comparing a fetus to an adult human being is that again, you and I can think. We have reasoning, understanding, empathy, etc. We feel pain, we retain and gather information. We think for ourselves and we have more thought out behavior than mere impulses.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Eclipseheart

[Infinis]

But yet the parent was just like the fetus at one point in it's life just like you and me am i right? Then what were we then at that point in time Alive with our own bodies or what?

Yes, the parent was a fetus at one point.

 

And yes, we did have our own bodies. We always have. The problem is that, in an unwanted pregnancy the fetus is using the parent's body against their will. The problem is that there are people out there who think it's okay to force people to carry pregnancies they don't want.

 

edit: I would much rather have the choice and never need to use it, than need it and not have safe access to it.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Infinis

[Laryal]

Yes, the parent was a fetus at one point.

 

And yes, we did have our own bodies. We always have. The problem is that, in an unwanted pregnancy the fetus is using the parent's body against their will. The problem is that there are people out there who think it's okay to force people to carry pregnancies they don't want.

 

edit: I would much rather have the choice and never need to use it, than need it and not have safe access to it.

 

We are a developing mass of cells waiting to be birthed so that we can then gain consciousness and understanding. At birth, we are able to live without our mother (For a period of time, anyways. And even then, our birth mother isn't a necessity.)

 

The tricky thing with comparing a fetus to an adult human being is that again, you and I can think. We have reasoning, understanding, empathy, etc. We feel pain, we retain and gather information. We think for ourselves and we have more thought out behavior than mere impulses.

 

This post has been edited by Eclipseheart on Sep 12 2015, 08:23 PM

 

But yet even in the womb babies can learn and have been know to have learned at the earliest stages.So if they are nothing more than a blob of cells then we are to and we can be killied with out no one batting an eye.

 

Infinis why even consider life is life in or out why kill an unborn baby who could have been a person who would have found the cure for cancer or other sickness or have been someone greater?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[Eclipseheart]

But yet even in the womb babies can learn and have been know to have learned at the earliest stages.So if they are nothing more than a blob of cells then we are to and we can be killied with out no one batting an eye.

Please give me proof on this, and please don't say "just google it" That's not proof. If you're able to use it in an argument, you should very well have resources to back up your claim.

[LascielsShadow]

We are a developing mass of cells waiting to be birthed so that we can then gain consciousness and understanding. At birth, we are able to live without our mother (For a period of time, anyways. And even then, our birth mother isn't a necessity.)

 

The tricky thing with comparing a fetus to an adult human being is that again, you and I can think. We have reasoning, understanding, empathy, etc. We feel pain, we retain and gather information. We think for ourselves and we have more thought out behavior than mere impulses.

 

This post has been edited by Eclipseheart on Sep 12 2015, 08:23 PM

 

But yet even in the womb babies can learn and have been know to have learned at the earliest stages.So if they are nothing more than a blob of cells then we are to and we can be killied with out no one batting an eye.

 

Infinis  why even consider life is life in or out why kill an unborn baby who could have been a person who would have found the cure for cancer or other sickness or have been someone greater?

Why do people always bring up that these aborted fetuses could have cured cancer or [X heroic thing]? Adolf Hitler was a fetus once. Pol Pot was a fetus once. Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy and Josef Mengele were fetuses once. There is exactly an equal chance that that fetus could have become a mass murderer or serial rapist/killer as there is that it would have become some great hero of humanity.

 

What a fetus could be does not trump the life of the person carrying them.

Edited September 13, 2015 by LascielsShadow

[Laryal]

Please give me proof on this, and please don't say "just google it" That's not proof. If you're able to use it in an argument, you should very well have resources to back up your claim.

You want links here are three.

 

http://www.today.com/parents/fetuses-can-l...inds-1D79962083

 

http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babi...arn-in-the-womb

 

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130102/babies-learn-womb

[Laryal]

Why do people always bring up that these aborted fetuses could have cured cancer or [X heroic thing]? Adolf Hitler was a fetus once. Pol Pot was a fetus once. Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy and Joesf Mengele were fetuses once. There is exactly an equal chance that that fetus could have become a mass murderer or serial rapist as there is that it would have become some great hero of humanity.

 

What a fetus could be does not trump the life of the person carrying them.

 

 

You are right but there is a chance they could be the ones to find the cures as well. So you are saying that the life in the womb is not as important as the parent? tell that to the parent who bore the the parent of the unborn.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[LascielsShadow]

You are right but  there is a chance they could be the ones to find the cures as well.

And there's a chance that they could develop a chemical weapon that destroys half the planet. What's your point?

 

Ed: Yes, actually, that is exactly what I am saying. An unborn, potential life is never more important than the person carrying it, unless the person carrying it decides that it is. IF the pregnant person decides that hey, they want their fetus to have a chance, even if it means potentially crippling or killing them, that's their prerogative, but nobody else in the world has the right to dictate or legislate that any and all pregnant people have to take such a risk.

Edited September 13, 2015 by LascielsShadow

[Eclipseheart]

You want links here are three.

 

http://www.today.com/parents/fetuses-can-l...inds-1D79962083

 

http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babi...arn-in-the-womb

 

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130102/babies-learn-womb

Thank you.

 

Although yes, they can in fact 'recognize' tunes or melodies, they do not retain the word said. While infants can't understand words, they are adept learners of vocal rhythms and patterns. That's it. They are only recognizing sound waves and patterns.

That's why they're able to differentiate between languages as well.

[Laryal]

And there's a chance that they could develop a chemical weapon that destroys half the planet. What's your point?

 

Ed: Yes, actually, taht is exactly what I am saying. An unborn, potential life is never more important than the person carrying it, unless the person carrying it decides that it is.

 

My point is life is more precious than anything else on earth.What if TJ's mom whom made this awesome Dragon Cave killed him in the womb you would not have this awesome game at all like it is now. Not just him but how about all those who have envented the computer or pc games.What if their parents done away with them.Yes there could have been others to take their place but it would not be the same. See you never know what the unborn could have done if they were allowed to live.Also i think they already have made that chemical it is call abortion.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[Infinis]

Infinis  why even consider life is life in or out why kill an unborn baby who could have been a person who would have found the cure for cancer or other sickness or have been someone greater?

Because in pregnancy, there are two lives to consider. Also I'm not sure, why even consider what? I'm aware that life is life, but I also don't think that I should ever tell anyone what to do with their body. If they want to give away their kidney, fine. If they want to terminate a pregnancy, fine. These things are best left to individual choice, because it is always better to have the choice and never need to use it than it is to need it and not have it.

 

A fetus can become a lot of things, but your argument fails to consider - as this argument often does - the potential negatives. That fetus has just as much chance of becoming the next Stalin, the next Hitler, or the next Ted Bundy. You must consider the negative outcomes, too, because they also matter.

 

My point is life is more precious than anything else on earth.What if TJ's mom whom made this awesome Dragon Cave killed him in the womb you would not have this ame at all like it is now. Not just him but how about all those who have envented the computer or pc games.What if their parents done aw3ay with them.Yes there could have been others to take their place but it would not be the same.

 

We can't miss what we never had, so we wouldn't care if this had never come to be.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Infinis

[sparkle10184]

My point is life is more precious than anything else on earth.What if TJ's mom whom made this awesome Dragon Cave killed him in the womb you would not have this ame at all like it is now. Not just him but how about all those who have envented the computer or pc games.What if their parents done aw3ay with them.Yes there could have been others to take their place but it would not be the same.

If TJ never existed we wouldn't know the game could have ever existed. You wouldn't sit down and think "Wow I wish TJ was alive so he could invent a game about dragons."

[LascielsShadow]

My point is life is more precious than anything else on earth.What if TJ's mom whom made this awesome Dragon Cave killed him in the womb you would not have this ame at all like it is now. Not just him but how about all those who have envented the computer or pc games.What if their parents done aw3ay with them.Yes there could have been others to take their place but it would not be the same.

I'm not concerned about what-ifs. I'm concerned about the reality of people being forced to carry unwanted fetuses to term when they can and do physically and/or mentally destroy the pregnant person. If TJ's mother had aborted him, we wouldn't have DC. So what? Somebody else would have come along and made something like it. If the inventors of various things had been aborted, someone else would have eventually come up with the same thing. "We wouldn't have X" is never, ever a valid excuse to ignore the bodily autonomy of a human being.

[TCA]

What if TJ's mom whom made this awesome Dragon Cave killed him in the womb you would not have this awesome game at all like it is now.

Okay, but if we're going to talk potential outcomes, you also have to think about potential outcomes for the parent. Say a young woman in college gets pregnant because a slightly abusive boyfriend poked a hole in the condom. She gets an abortion, breaks up with the guy, goes on to medical school and becomes a world-renowned heart surgeon who saves hundreds of lives and pioneers a surgical advance that goes on to save thousands more.

 

What if she didn't get an abortion, and stayed with the guy, who then became more abusive after she had the child, and instead of becoming a fantastic heart surgeon, she raised a kid below the poverty line while being constantly beaten down by a manipulative husband? Isn't that the worse world here?

 

We can never know which world we're creating with our choices, but at least if our choices create the slightly worse world, we can say they were our choices and nobody else forced our hand. If you don't allow someone to make their choice, and what you force on them creates the worse world, they have the right to resent you for it.

Edited September 13, 2015 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[Laryal]

If TJ never existed we wouldn't know the game could have ever existed. You wouldn't sit down and think "Wow I wish TJ was alive so he could invent a game about dragons."

No but we would wonder if there was a game like this out there.I did that and found this game.So in cunclusion all life matters no matter how great or small.

 

Guys you are writing to fast i can not keep up sorry but i am out for now i can not quot everyone on here. So talk to each other if you read my post on the other page you will know why.But even if said woman done that her son or duaghter could have been greater. Well i have to log off but think about it say what if this happened or that could that unborn baby saved even more lives.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Laryal

[sparkle10184]

No but we would wonder if there was a game like this out there.I did that and found this game.So in cunclusion all life matters no matter how great or small.

I am 5 billion times more concerned about the physical and mental health of a living, breathing, conscious human being than whether a virtual game about pixel dragons exists. I would trade every virtual game in existence to assure the well-being of a person.