Man kills newborn daughter because he couldn't afford to keep her
- Thread starter sb666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I read this alot, really, no. Adoption is hell for kids, usually kids that are in there, do not enjoy or remotely like it. Don't know their parents and wonder if they love them or not. Watch the movie Annie if you want to understand it a little kiddish way.Dango said:
Well, you know, abortion usually happens with less cinder blocks.Markgraf said:
Are you kidding? So adoption is not preferred over death by cinder block?Aprilgold said:
Unless the adopting parents are a-holes, why can't the kid have a good life away from his/her biological parents?
I'm completely missing your logic here.
You don't understand the concept do you?Markgraf said:
Abortion is meant to be done before the child develops a functional brain. Before the fetus has any kind of sensory input. At that point, it's as much a person as a meat ball or a pile of wank. It's just a pile of cells, not really sentient.
At this point it was a baby. It was alive, it experienced things. It experienced being born, an horrible and downright torturous process by all counts, to a complete void. It experienced taking a cinder block to the head. Twice.
So no, this isn't abortion, this is murder.
It isn't the same thing. Abortion (at least in Britain) is not legal past 24 weeks of pregnancy. This is because after 24 weeks, rapid development of the foetus' brain occurs, allowing the foetus to control it's own bodily functions. By 25-26 weeks of pregnancy, the foetus' brain and nervous system are formed to the point that it is now, in the eyes of the law and many scientists, a human life.Markgraf said:
Some people argue that it becomes a human life once it gains senses, namely, the ability to hear at around 19 weeks. Others argue that it is alive at different points. The point is, everyone who supports abortion only supports it up to the point of development that they believe makes the foetus alive. No-one supports aborting what they believe to be a human life, because at that point is ceases to be abortion and becomes infanticide. No-one would argue that a newborn baby is not alive and so it is not the same as abortion.
OT: in large cities in China, because of the one-child limit, parents who give birth to a girl often leave them out on the street to die, because they would not be able to support the family as well as a boy could.
In what way is it the same?RiouChan said:
How is dropping a cinder block on an infant the same as removing a cluster of cells from a woman's uterus?
No one supports abortion after the point when a foetus is a fully formed baby. Abortion is only performed before a foetus is conscious, has fully formed senses, can control its bodily functions and exhibits all the necessary characteristics in order to be classed as alive.
Yes it is potential life, but so are a lot of things. So are the millions of sperm that a man produces every week. So are all the eggs a woman loses in ovulation throughout her life. So are all the sperm that this baby would have produced had it been allowed to grow up.
Is someone who turns down unprotected sex killing children? Because if they had consented then a human life may have been formed and by turning down sex they are preventing it forming, just like abortion prevents a child from forming. It just occurs further along the line.
The point is, the potential for something is not the same as the actual thing. There are paedophile rings on the internet where people share pictures of naked children. I have internet access, therefore I have the potential to become a paedophile. So does every other person with an internet connection and a computer. I am not going to be jailed for paedophillia though, because the potential for an something is not the same as that thing actually occurring.
I'd say that 1% is still more likely to occur than one of the babies that had been aborted becoming the person that cures cancer. Also, you didn't answer my question and don't bother because I just came to a realisation. I'm male and assuming you are as well, then both are opinions on abortion are irrelevant, it's the womans body and it's their choice.Siberian Relic said:
I feel nauseous, and I'm not sure why I went to this thread when I knew I was going to be disgusted. But then again, bringing these kind of things to light, and seeing people's genuinely disgusted and appalled reaction is a good way to make sure that we re all relatively sane and can at least agree on something when it comes to morals/ethics.
Like some ppl have previously said on this thread: Disgusting, inexcusable, and he could've sent the kid to be cared for by someone else (Adoption, relatives, friends, co-workers).
Like some ppl have previously said on this thread: Disgusting, inexcusable, and he could've sent the kid to be cared for by someone else (Adoption, relatives, friends, co-workers).
What does state have to do with this?
I don't even know where the hell Pennsylvania is, I'm guessing the USA because they're the kids who always don't write their names on the assignment.
Anyway, IMO slightly more horrific than abortion but there ARE shelters (in my country anyway) you can anonymously drop your baby at to prevent incidents like this, even if some people think it encourages dumping.
I don't even know where the hell Pennsylvania is, I'm guessing the USA because they're the kids who always don't write their names on the assignment.
Anyway, IMO slightly more horrific than abortion but there ARE shelters (in my country anyway) you can anonymously drop your baby at to prevent incidents like this, even if some people think it encourages dumping.