[Adoption]
KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS CLOSED AND WE WONT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IF YOU WANNA GET KNOCKED UP THEN FINE BUT DEAL WITH THE DAMN CONSEQUENCES.YOU ARE KILLIN A BABY WHO COULD BE THE VERY ONE TO CURE CANCER, CAUSE WORLD PEACE, ANYTHING, AND YOU WANNA KILL IT. GET A DAMN GRIP ON LIFE AND KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED.
SIT ON THAT ONE FOR A WHILE.
53 comments
I have adopted a child, and I prevented him, not just to be aborted, but in a very wretched situation, which legs should I supposedly have closed?
How many 16 year old high school dropouts in South Bronx are likely to pop out the next Gandhi?
Wait, 'keep your legs closed' is followed by 'sit on that one for a while'? Make up your fucking mind!
WELL, IF GUYS WOULD JUST KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS, WE WON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM. TELL MEN TO GET A DAMN GRIP ON LIFE AND KEEP THEIR PANTS ZIPPED.
Does the same logic apply to letting her "waste" an egg each month that she doesn't conceive? After all, that egg, with the right sperm donor, could have grown up to become the next Einstein, Lincoln, or Beethoven, right? So she should never cross those legs, should she? She's killing dozens of her potential babies over the years with birth control and/or abstinence![/sarcasm]
Or, you could be giving birth to a baby who will grow up to be a mass murderer, child rapist, or Dick Cheney.
YOU ARE KILLIN A BABY WHO COULD BE THE VERY ONE TO CURE CANCER, CAUSE WORLD PEACE , ANYTHING, AND YOU WANNA KILL IT image
Well, Sweat Cuntfest, if adoption is so objectionable to you... may I suggest abortion, instead?
Amorrn said,
KEEP YOUR DAMN LEGS CLOSED AND WE WONT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IF YOU WANNA *ksht* Keep your damn legs closed and we wont have this problem.
You mean pregnancy? Sex is a human instinct nearly as strong as the urge to eat. We're built to want it and built to do it. It's fun too! If you don't want a baby, there are numerous forms of protection and contraception you can use. Trying to resist the urge to have sex, though, is a less than optimal solution. You can't repress your nature forever, and you don't know what people will do if they try!
If you wanna get knocked up then fine but deal with the damn consequences.
If you use protection, the negative consequences are nonexistent.
you are killin a baby...
No. You have to wait nine months before you have a baby. Sheesh, don't they teach these things anymore?
...who could be the very one to cure cancer, cause world peace, anything...
Heh, I kinda like it when people talk about "what the baby could have done." It's such a bad argument it almost makes me laugh.
Anyway, let's move on to the rebuttal.
Remember, there's no baby until nine months after sex. If you get an abortion, you're not killing a baby, you're just choosing not to have one. You're killing an embryo, sure, but an embryo is not conscious and has no moral personhood or rights worth considering, and it feeds off of the woman's body like a parasite.
Talking about what the baby "would have done" if you'd had a baby in the first place is an excersize in futility because there are a vast number of genetic combinations that could, theoretically, exist in a person, each one of which could exist in any one of a vast number of different sets of environmental conditions, creating an uncountably huge number of "potential people" who could exist but don't or didn't. Now, keep in mind, that each one could have had any one (or any 30) of a nearly infinite set of potential genetic mutations, and could have caused any one or several of a huge number of impacts on the environment.
In short, the number of "potential people" who could exist but were never born is effectively infinite, so it's silly to talk about them.
Or, to make it more applicable to your statement:
The baby you would be giving birth to right now if you'd had sex nine months ago could have been the one to cure cancer.
...and you wanna kill it.
Getting rid of an unwanted embryo is no more of a moral wrong than getting rid of an unwanted mosquito.
Actually, it may be less of a moral wrong by a minute and insignificant amount. An unwanted embryo is a parasite that is not conscious and therefore has no moral personhood. A mosquito is a parasite that might be dimly conscious and therefore may have some minor form of moral personhood, but in any case, has given up her right to freedom from harm by feeding off of you.
That's a kind of a nitpick, though, so I'll go with moral equal.
Get a damn grip on life and keep your legs closed.
Again, resisting the urge to have sex is neither optimal nor even particularly effective. Telling people to suppress their second most powerful hard-wired urge never goes over very well.
YOU ARE KILLIN A BABY WHO COULD BE THE VERY ONE TO CURE CANCER, CAUSE WORLD PEACE, ANYTHING, AND YOU WANNA KILL IT.
That clump of cells could equally well turn out to be the next dictator, serial killer, paedophile, rapist, etc. It all pretty much balances out.
Besides, for every aborted pregnancy, there are plenty of other viable births - look for your future Einsteins among them, and your odds are still quite good.
What about women who plan a pregnancy, but it turns out to be etopic? Should the mother and baby die?
WHO COULD BE THE VERY ONE TO CURE CANCER, CAUSE WORLD PEACE, ANYTHING,
So, why keeping the legs closed?. Wait, because he could also be a serial killer or just a regular chap?, does it make it less of a person?.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
