RE: There is a big difference between...
September 16, 2009 at 8:00 pm
(This post was last modified: September 16, 2009 at 8:10 pm by Violet.)
(September 16, 2009 at 6:44 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Sae, I say a foetus isn't interchangeable with a baby once the foetus has developed past the stage of 'a bunch of cells', into the stage of having feeling. A baby of any age and development in the womb, isn't all the same - the age and development matters. There's a difference between 1 day pregnant and almost 9 months!
Right before the baby is born, it's just as much of a baby for instance. So where do you draw the line? I personally draw it at the point whenever the baby can feel pain or suffer in any way. That's what matters to me on this issue. But - where that point exactly is I don't know. But, as I said - I know there's a difference between 1 day's pregnant and nearly 9 months!
EvF
I draw the line at which baby and fetus are no longer interchangeable... at the birth. There is a great difference between 1 day and 9 months: time. One is worth more than the other, because the mother has carried it longer... and the mother eats more, and is less active during some of the later later months, therefore adding some monetary value to the developing baby. It is very silly to carry a baby for more than 6-7 months, and then choose to abort it. So silly, I vehemently recommend against it.
Life is painful... letting a person experience the pain of life is little different to me than giving brief pain followed by immediate peace. If the life being raised will endure less pain in its existence because of your teachings and economic stability... That child will have lived happily. That child should only be aborted if the mother does not feel ready for it.
If, however, you are not ready to teach a child, and your economy is not very predictable and is not good enough to comfortably support them... That child has much less likelihood of living happily. That child should be aborted because the mother is not ready for it.
Why a person would wait any more than 4-5 months into pregnancy is, to be quite honest: beyond me...
(September 16, 2009 at 6:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(September 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm)Saerules Wrote: which is why i say that one must be absolutly secure before they have children.
No that's very wrong Sae. No one can ever know. For most people they never ever will be secure enough to have children. They do however have every reason to have children if they will love that child.
(September 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm)Saerules Wrote: It is only perverse to be able to live a better life for the sake of your family... and to impatiently create a family at your status instead.
You speak like love doesn't ever come into it.
Of course we can never be 100% sure... of anything. However, we can be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. Interestingly... we have a population crisis at hand... Most people should NOT be having children right now...
If they love their unborn: their unborn has value. Many of us probably have the right of having children... but also many of us probably shouldn't be having them
I'd like to fix the population being a problem (by finding more efficient ways of producing food, slowly terraforming other habitable zones, and increasing the land in which people can live by several methods)... so that i would see nothing wrong with having children (Assuming you are a good parent with a paycheck that can support a family). How I think of it is this: If the would-be parents truly love the children they will have... I should expect them to love their children enough to wait on having them.
As a side note: do you all realize how difficult it is to respond to 5 people at once?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
