Life

[irishdragonlord]

Ok, no, this isn't about abortion.

And you may be thinking, "OMG IDL ISN'T BEING CONTROVERSIAL?!"

Well...no. ^-^ Still controversy, just a different light.

Abortion is all about the ethics of whether or not the baby is a living being and one's right to "choice." But so many other issues about life are the same. For example:

Human euthanasia. I have no set preference on this becuase it is far too diverse for me to have gotten a real grip on, but some other people may know better.

Also, there is one that crosses path with abortion - Scott Peterson was convicted of first and second degree murder, of his wife and unborn son, respectively. But some argue fetuses are not "alive"; therefore, what can he be convicted of? Where is the line drawn?

Edit: Forgot this part

Elderly people, infants, and mentally dumb people - should we keep them alive? Some argue dumb people are a meaningless strain on economy, and old people - who will "die anyway" are as well. And some say that, infants can be euthanised if a mother does not want them. As far as I'm concerned that's a load of trash, but some have that opinion.

Just some ideas for more discussion that debates, if it can be done with this topic

[The Angry Artist]

IDL said:

Also, there is one that crosses path with abortion - Scott Peterson was convicted of first and second degree murder, of his wife and unborn son, respectively. But some argue fetuses are not "alive"; therefore, what can he be convicted of? Where is the line drawn?

Simply because he was convicted of second degree murder doesn't mean they're right -- on the same token, it doesn't mean they're wrong either.

[Linnen Malfoy]

Well, the murder charge with the fetus is acutaly new. It was debated for a long time if it would carry a charge or if it would even have a name. I belive that the fact that it carries weight in the trial was a landmark decision.

But, more or less, what sets that apart with abortion is that the mother chooses if it lives or not. With Laci Peterson she (and her fetus) were murdered.

As for human euthinesia, I think it needs to be done sometimes. There are people who are in comas and can only feel pain,or are so miserable. It really all depends, but I think mostly if the pain is too much to get on with, then perhaps it would be better to simply leave this plac rather than stay around and have this pain not only hurt yourself, but family members.

[irishdragonlord]

Linnen said:

Well, the murder charge with the fetus is acutaly new. It was debated for a long time if it would carry a charge or if it would even have a name. I belive that the fact that it carries weight in the trial was a landmark decision.

But, more or less, what sets that apart with abortion is that the mother chooses if it lives or not. With Laci Peterson she (and her fetus) were murdered.

Well, in this case, one could - loosely - claim that the father chose whether or not the baby would live. Same principles, no? That is a loose claim, of course XP

And TAA... that's what I asked Where is the line?

[Linnen Malfoy]

IDL said:

Well, in this case, one could - loosely - claim that the father chose whether or not the baby would live. Same principles, no? That is a loose claim, of course XP

Not really. I mean, he also murdered the mother. Besides, the father, I belive, has a chance to reliniquish legal responisblity of the child if the mother wants to keep it, thus making him have an 'abortion' of sorts.

[Stal]

Linnen said:

Not really. I mean, he also murdered the mother. Besides, the father, I belive, has a chance to reliniquish legal responisblity of the child if the mother wants to keep it, thus making him have an 'abortion' of sorts.

Wrong. Unless something has changed in the last year, but in all states the father literally has no say. He can't keep her from getting an abortion, nor can he stop her from getting one. And if she keeps the child, guess who has to pay child support (if they're not married).

Even on the baby's birth certificate now both parents SSN are required to be on there. The father has about 30 days after getting a notice saying he's been named at the father to go use a DNA test to show they're wrong (if she is), but eventually there will be a SSN attached to certificate. And the government will not accept "I don't know who the father is" as an answer.

Why? So that the government and forcibly bring out the child support from the paychecks and so forth.

Crude, but effective. I feel sorry for the guys, really. They get screwed over the most. But I don't feel too sorry for 'em....just wish there was more equal distribution of the responsibility given to the mothers as well.

So anyway, the point is, the father can't just relinquish control...unless it's one of those clauses that says the mtoher signs off on it as well and yadda yadda....but even then, it's not the father's say at all.

[Komori]

Guest-Stal said:

Crude, but effective. I feel sorry for the guys, really. They get screwed over the most. But I don't feel too sorry for 'em....just wish there was more equal distribution of the responsibility given to the mothers as well.

Heh, I don't feel sorry for the guys. They get away with just having to pay money, but their lives are free. At least they don't have to take care of a baby.

... But then again, I don't feel too sorry for the mothers either. For most of them, they shouldn't have been doin' the sorts of things they did.

[irishdragonlord]

GhostKomori said:

Heh, I don't feel sorry for the guys. They get away with just having to pay money, but their lives are free. At least they don't have to take care of a baby.

... But then again, I don't feel too sorry for the mothers either. For most of them, they shouldn't have been doin' the sorts of things they did.

But they're paying the money to take care of the baby o0 Isn't the mother then just raising it whithout needing to get a job as well? The guy has to pay for the baby with their own jobs - that's not too free.

But, I agree with you about the mothers.

[Buddy]

IDL said:

But they're paying the money to take care of the baby o0 Isn't the mother then just raising it whithout needing to get a job as well? The guy has to pay for the baby with their own jobs - that's not too free.

But, I agree with you about the mothers.

Yes, but the amount fathers have to pay is pretty piddly when compared to the monumentous cost it requires to take care of a new-born baby. Like, $500 or $700 a month or something. Very small. And hardly enough to raise a baby on single-handedly.

[kittygirl]

IDL said:

Elderly people, infants, and mentally dumb people - should we keep them alive? Some argue dumb people are a meaningless strain on economy, and old people - who will "die anyway" are as well. And some say that, infants can be euthanised if a mother does not want them. As far as I'm concerned that's a load of trash, but some have that opinion.

Just some ideas for more discussion that debates, if it can be done with this topic

If we don't keep elderly people alive then the definition of elderly will go down soon you will be dead before you get a chance to live. And infants yes we should keep them alive how do you think we are keeping the human race around (or did you mean some thing else?) And mentaly retared people well that is when the line is harder to draw. Mentally retarted people still have fealings. There fore they should be alive. But if you have to keep them locked up and they are unhappy then it is the family's choice.

[Duky]

Buddy said:

Yes, but the amount fathers have to pay is pretty piddly when compared to the monumentous cost it requires to take care of a new-born baby. Like, $500 or $700 a month or something. Very small. And hardly enough to raise a baby on single-handedly.

Very right, Bude. When my mom was receiving child support for me, she had two work two jobs as well just to make ends meet.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

IDL said:

But they're paying the money to take care of the baby o0 Isn't the mother then just raising it whithout needing to get a job as well? The guy has to pay for the baby with their own jobs - that's not too free.

The mother is raising it without needing to get a job herself? How do you think this works? A mother will still have to get a job to pay for day to day life. Even if she is on welfare, in some states you still have welfare to work programs. My mother had to raise three children on child support. She was not just sitting on her butt all day while the money comes 'rollin' on in'. Day to day life is hard enough. If the car breaks down or you have a medical emergancy, or you are sick and miss a few days work and pay, what then?

It is not easy, it is not free money, it is not a hand out. If you sired children, the least you can do is make sure they can eat. Child support sure does not cover all of the food, clothing, bills, gas, and other expenses that a family has to meet.

Then of course there's the question of if the mother's working, who's looking after the children? That's a very good question indeed. The answer is often 'no one'. Being a single parent, especially if you were of a low economic status in the first place, is a trail by fire. It is hell, I know this because I watched my mother go through it. She worked her butt off, and there was NEVER enough money, even with child support.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

As for the thought of killing the mentally handicapped; there are different levels of retardation. My older sister works with many young adults at different levels of function. These are still very much people. Drain on the economy or not, I do think that we have a responsibility to our fellow man. If they could, they would look after themselves, they would LOVE to have that ability, but it's just not possible. I don't think it's so big of a price to pay that we'd kill them. Kill human beings just because of tax money? No, no, no. Mentally handicapped people are still people with hopes and dreams and feelings.

[irishdragonlord]

Thank you Buddy and TEoW for clearing that up for me.

And Kittygirl, about the infants - some people say that it is okay to kill the infants if the mother does not want them, basically, a living abortion if you will.

And what did you mean by "if you have to keep them locked up and they are unhappy then it is the family's choice"? Why would you need to keep a dumb person locked up? An insane person, true, but I don't think one who is dumb. And even then I don't think you should kill them for it.

[Oily]

IDL said:

And what did you mean by "if you have to keep them locked up and they are unhappy then it is the family's choice"? Why would you need to keep a dumb person locked up? An insane person, true, but I don't think one who is dumb. And even then I don't think you should kill them for it.

Maybe they meant someone who is so mentally disabled that they pose a danger to others? Some mental diseases do make people dangerous, like schizophrenia etc.

I think it is our duty to look after and care for these people. Some people are still incredibly loving or special despite their disabilities. I think it teaches us to be more tolerant, more caring, and more appreciative. Ditto to elderly and infants. We have empathy, and that's important.