kate4christ03 wrote:
Ok my whole point was to refute the guy who started this topic...I was showing that young couples can make it without aborting a child..But obviously you didn't see the point.
I wasn't that I didn't get your point, but rather that I thought it was nonsense. There is a big difference.
kate4christ03 wrote:
Eorl wrote
Quote:The only way this argument works is if you insist that every woman must have sex with as many men as she can at every opportunity from her earliest possible age of conception until menopause or her womb falls out, just to enable every potential person to exist.
My story had nothing to do with the possible existence of future children, but with children already in the womb...So this statement of yours is ridiculous. Im not a psychic and can't predict the future of any " potential person" Im talking about the now, A woman already pregnant faced with options. I can't stand to hear about young couples who have sex then freak out when they become pregnant, decide its in their best interest to abort the baby.... there all always other options that don't involve killing the baby.....there is no excuse and you can go round and round trying to make up silly little arguments, but there is no excuse for a young couple to abort....
But it's OK for you to go around making silly little arguments to justify trying to force your silly religious rules on others?
A foetus is not a child, it is a potential child by definition. You use the words "child" and "baby" to cloud the issue.
A woman who is ovulating has options too....she can prevent that egg from becoming a person by abstaining from sex. Why is that moral to you? If your parents had done as your religion expects (abstain), you would not exist ! That is a fact, not a silly little argument.
You attempt to use the "goodness" of your existence to justify that abortion is morally wrong, but your "proof" also proves that abstinence would be equally morally wrong because the result would be the same....ie, no you.