TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 06:36 PM

This thread has been labeled as triggering by the original poster or by a Moderator. Please take this into consideration before continuing to read.

So I am writing a paper arguing for Pro-Life (against abortion) and I will be using the FLO theory to defend it.

For those not familiar with the theory it goes like this:

An innocent man is walking down the street, and someone comes up to him an shoots him.

This is a wrong thing to do.

Why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to kill an innocent man?

In our society it is wrong to kill him because we are robbing him of his future. He doesnít disserve to have his future taken from him. He was innocent.

FLO stands for a Future like Ours.

A fetus has a future like ours. If allowed to do so, it will grow up and become an adult. If you terminate the pregnancy you are robbing the fetus of its future. A future of being an adult, having friends, family, a career. Etc. The same type of future that the man on the street had. A future that all of us have, a future like ours.

So the argument is, if taking the future of an innocent man is wrong morally, and illegal. Then therefore killing a fetus and taking its future is wrong morally and should be illegal as well. Because one is committing the exact same crime, taking an innocent persons future against their will.

Now, in my paper I have to address some counter arguments. Can you guys give me some ideas on some really good counter arguments to just this theory. Not to abortion in general.

Thanks so much. : )




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 06:41 PM

The main problem with this is that abstaining from sex until marriage is also a case of preventing someone's future.

Just had to point that out. There's still an arbitrary line between life and non-being.
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Of V View Post
The main problem with this is that abstaining from sex until marriage is also a case of preventing someone's future.

Just had to point that out. There's still an arbitrary line between life and non-being.
Well that doesnít really work because an egg by itself doesnít have a future like ours. It has to be fertilized. And if you wear a condom, then the egg (hopefully) wont become fertilized.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzie View Post


Well that doesnít really work because an egg by itself doesnít have a future like ours. It has to be fertilized. And if you wear a condom, then the egg (hopefully) wont become fertilized.
And if you abort a fetus, it won't have a future like ours. The point is that the egg also has the potential for a future like ours, and it is within our power to give it that future, so by this theory the morally best thing to do is for all women to try to be pregnant as close to 100% of the time as possible, to create the maximum number of lives. And even if you don't buy that, it still follows from your theory that birth-control is immoral, because it is preventing life in the same way that abortion is.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
thebigmole Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
thebigmole's Avatar
 
Name: Taylor
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Orlando, Fl

Posts: 1,668
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 07:13 PM

I love this debate. Now it is acutally illegal to kill that person because he is a person. The definition of murder is:the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Person a VERY important word in that definition. A fetus is not a person, yes it does have the potential to be a person however you have the potential to make a person every time you have sex, so whenever you use protection you are stopping potential people from potentially becoming. Also who says that killing someone is wrong because you are robbing them of their future. For all we know their future was to be hit by a car the next day. Killing someone is wrong because it's robbing them of their life, their already established, has taken a breath, can think and make decisions, life. For all we know a woman who has an abortion might have miscarried that baby some time down the line. We don't know people's future so we do not punish people for potentially having killed the next Mother Teresa we punish them for taking the life they currently had. A fetus, actually an embryo if you want to be specific since the majority of abortions occur while the baby is still in the embryotic state, is not a person. Just like a fertilized egg is not a chicken, I'm collecting eggs and I drop one I do not say "Oh crap I just killed a chicken."

Face facts, until the day comes when a woman can have her child removed and it can be "grown" the rest of the way without her having to have any responsibility for it, abortion will continue to happen. Necessary evil. However I do wish you the best of luck on your paper, it is a decent argument.

If I came off rude in this at all I apologize, this is one of two arguments that I'm very passionate about.


"For Ignorance killed the cat, Curiosity was framed." -Caitlin McGrath

"For this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down." -Mary Pickford

"But the music's so happy!" -Little Sally: Urinetown

"If our own policies aren't supporting equality then what are we fighting for?"- Kathy Griffin
   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Brandon Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
Brandon's Avatar
 
Name: Brandon
Age: 29
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,540
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 07:24 PM

Counter-Argument: There's a fine difference between killing a man and killing a fetus because a man is a fully function-able human being, therefore it's completely different to kill a fully function-able human being, than to kill a potential baby that looks like a deformed potato. If you walk up to a man, he's going to recognize the situation and he knows that he's going to die because a stranger has a gun, and that stranger is coming up to him with a gun. What does a fetus know? From my understanding, they don't know what the heck is going on. I've heard stories of people remembering what it's like to come out of their mom's vagina (which I don't buy for even a second), but no one says they remember what it was like being in the process of becoming a baby. As far as I know, it's IMPOSSIBLE to remember that far. People can't honestly say that fetuses know that they are going to die. To me, abortion is like...murdering an animal in its sleep. For one thing it's an animal, not the same as a human being, and two...it doesn't even see it coming. If we were able to experience what it's like to be inside a fetus, then I'd imagine it being dark and you don't know what the heck is going on. And if you were aborted, I'd imagine that you'd be dead before you could even realize that you were, assuming you know the difference between life and death at that point in time (matter of opinion of course). However, if it was a man walking down the street, he has enough knowledge to know that guns are dangerous, that his life is in jeopardy, and that he has a lot more to lose to lose in life than a fetus that was just created not even that long ago.
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Power Cosmic Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Power Cosmic's Avatar
 
Name: Janos
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Posts: 3,922
Blog Entries: 225
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 08:59 PM

If an un-prepared teenage mother has a baby, yes, you're bringing a life into this world, but you're bringing it into a world of privation and pain.

I see abortion as completely ethical just because of that...if you're going to bring a life into the world, it's your responsibility to make sure you can take care of it properly, if you can't, then that makes you the one in the wrong for bringing it into the world, just to cause it pain.




"My one desire is for peace -- peace for everyone"

  Send a message via MSN to Power Cosmic  
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigmole View Post
I love this debate. Now it is acutally illegal to kill that person because he is a person. The definition of murder is:the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Well if you are going to take that route, then you would have to define what makes a 'person'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintessence View Post
If an un-prepared teenage mother has a baby, yes, you're bringing a life into this world, but you're bringing it into a world of privation and pain.
It doesn’t matter what the future of the child is going to be. You can’t kill an innocent man because he might have a painful future ahead of him. It is still a future.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
thebigmole Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
thebigmole's Avatar
 
Name: Taylor
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Orlando, Fl

Posts: 1,668
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzie View Post

Well if you are going to take that route, then you would have to define what makes a 'person'.



It doesnít matter what the future of the child is going to be. You canít kill an innocent man because he might have a painful future ahead of him. It is still a future.
A person is a living thing that can do at least two of the following things:
Breath on it's own
Think for itself/make decisions
Communicate/ not necessarily talking

I see "person" as being equivalent to "human being". However there is a difference when it comes to being human. My hair is human, my skin cells are human, and a fetus made by two people is human. But I'm not murdering a human being when I scratch an itch, even though under the right circumstances skin cells could be grown to make people. And one is not murdering a human being when terminating an embryo/fetus.

As for the second part of your argument you start by saying that the future doesn't matter but then you say "It is still a future." So which is it? Does the future come into account or not?


"For Ignorance killed the cat, Curiosity was framed." -Caitlin McGrath

"For this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down." -Mary Pickford

"But the music's so happy!" -Little Sally: Urinetown

"If our own policies aren't supporting equality then what are we fighting for?"- Kathy Griffin

Last edited by thebigmole; December 11th 2009 at 09:35 PM.
   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigmole View Post
A person is a living thing that can do at least two of the following things:
Breath on it's own
Think for itself/make decisions
Communicate/ not necessarily talking
So someone who is in a coma is not a person? But then again chimps and dolphins fit under your definition of a person. As they can do all of those things as well.


And what I meant by that last statement is, it doesn't matter the quality of the future, it just matters that it is a future.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
Power Cosmic Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Power Cosmic's Avatar
 
Name: Janos
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Posts: 3,922
Blog Entries: 225
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:12 PM

In response to what you said, I guess I don't think of a foetus as a person. It's almost a person, but not quite.
I mean, I guess I think the choice should always be present, that every woman should be allowed to choose either without fear of ridicule or harassment, so then it becomes and issue of personal ethics and morality rather than legislation.

Also, about your last statement. See, from a 'all-life-is-sacred' point of view, that's quite valid, but then when you think about all the pain in the world (a quick skim over some threads on TH will give you a good cut-away view). I think quality of life does matter..since think of the struggling single mother who goes from just about being able to feed herself to starving both herself and her child since she can't have an abortion...situations like that.
It would be better for the wellbeing of both entities. I know that's rather harsh and utilitarian, but I guess I have a kind of mindblock in thinking of a foetus as a person, like, the thought process in my head just says "foetus = human being" the same way, to cite a classic example, "egg = chicken". But an egg sandwich is very different to a chicken sandwich.....damn, I'm hungry now >.>

But back on topic, in regards to your assignment Lizzie, maybe write a paragraph or two on my view? (Why does that come out sounding so egotistical? It's not, meant to be ^^; )





"My one desire is for peace -- peace for everyone"

  Send a message via MSN to Power Cosmic  
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
TigerTank77 Offline
Rage is the best anesthetic
I've been here a while
********
 
TigerTank77's Avatar
 
Name: Ben
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: NY

Posts: 1,534
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:26 PM

Lemme get an idea of where you stand before I enter this argument. Are you against ALL forms of abortion, or would you only support it in emergency situations?


Often I lie wide awake, thinking of things I could make.
But I donít seem to have the parts to build them.
I am so scared of what will kill me in the end, for I am not prepared.
I hope I will get the chance to be someone, to be human.





  Send a message via AIM to TigerTank77 Send a message via MSN to TigerTank77 Send a message via Skype™ to TigerTank77 
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:30 PM

It’s all sounding good guys. : ) This is really going to help out. And Janos... I will think about adding your point.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
dancinfool Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
dancinfool's Avatar
 
Age: 29

Posts: 422
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:
it doesn't matter the quality of the future, it just matters that it is a future
So does that mean you vehemently disagree with situations where someone is brain-dead in a coma and the family decides to turn the life-support machine off? They have a 'future' but only if they are kept alive artifically. A fetus can't survive by itself either.
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Jesus Christ. Offline
FŁhrer of the sausage people
I can't get enough
*********
 
Jesus Christ.'s Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,301
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:34 PM

But a foetus is practically no different from a carrot, and eating a carrot isn't immoral is it?
Masturbating must also be bad then? Well, for a man, millions of sperm cells dieing, and they're all potential lives?
And what about if the baby being born would kill the mother life? Is that not taking away her future? As apposed to 'saving' the future of something that may not even survive being born?
What about pregnancy in poverty, a baby coming along isn't going to help, just make it worse for everybody else, and the baby. So perhaps you're saving the baby from the future as well?
In my opinion you picked an extremely bad theory to back up pro-life. There are numerous amounts of better argument to back it up.

And another thing, does a foetus have a personality? I doubt it. So how can you take away the future of something without a personality, something that can't even function by its self?
   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancinfool View Post

So does that mean you vehemently disagree with situations where someone is brain-dead in a coma and the family decides to turn the life-support machine off? They have a 'future' but only if they are kept alive artifically. A fetus can't survive by itself either.
Well if someone is brain dead, then they donít have a future like ours. They are brain dead, you donít come back from that.
Itís not about surviving on your own. its about robbing something of a future like ours. The fetus, if allowed to continue to grow, will become a functioning member of society. A brain dead patient wont.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU's Avatar
 

Posts: 2,088
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:53 PM

The argument I can see against the FLO one is a) consequences of not aborting and b) motivation to abort.

For the first one, if by chance there is a complication and it ends up being a question of does the mother live, try to give birth but fail and both die? Does the mother try to give birth and does but then dies? Or, does the mother try to give birth and it's a still-born? With this argument, you assume that it's not a tiny complication but a pretty severe medical one, so the first and last questions are the more immediate ones. If the mother keeps it, then she and the fetus die, in which case it's a matter of what's better: 2 deaths vs. 1? Obviously 1 death is better. If the mother keeps it but the fetus is born as a still-born, and if through medical technology this can be seen, then aborting it will save time, effort and struggling for the mother because the outcome is the same but keeping the fetus is just prolonging what the immediate result will be (death).

As for the second question, this is on where it's going to tie into other issues, such as possible adoption. I'm not going to expand on it because it's going to go on a tangent.

The motivation is also important to address. Going back to the man being capped, the FLO theory assumes that the guy was just plain unfortunate. The problem is, people tend to be motivated to do something and people are motivated by a various number of things. This ends up forming a monolithic bias, which will tear apart an argument very fast. It also can form a microstructural bias, which is where it doesn't consider any external forces influencing it. In the case of the man being shot, you assume the killer wasn't on substances, threatened to kill someone or else he/she dies, mental illness, etc... . Although your example assumes the killer just picked out of random, the microstructural bias comes into play when trying to apply it to the practical world.

In the case of abortion, the mother has to be motivated to undergo the abortion by weighing the possible consequences. If she realizes that given the circumstances, it's going to be a rather hellish several years, she has to decide what's better for her, the baby and the father. In this sense, she's motivated by compassion for a good life for the helpless, completely dependent baby. She could also be motivated by having her culture or family disapprove if they found out about her pregnancy. In this case, she's motivated by self-preservation for herself. She can also be motivated by considering what it will cost financially because kids are expensive. If she's unable to afford it, then she's motivated by self-preservation but in a slightly different way.

The possible argument with this is that there's another avenue not considered, adoption. The argument against this one using motivation is if the mother knows she's unfit or will be punished or some other negative result, she has to decide if adoption is better off. Adoption in this sense is harder for the mother if she really wants to keep the baby and fears that if she puts it for adoption, then she's going to be very worried, depressed, etc... because she's put the baby in the hands of strangers never to be seen again. In this case, she's motivated both by self-preservation of herself and compassion for a good life for the baby.

All these arguments go out the window with the monolithic bias and microstructural bias.

The last argument is that an abortion is not considered to be an act of murder because the fetus is considered to be not a human. It is living because it's growing in an organized way as we can see, however, it does not meet the legal concept of a living human. This makes it comparable to stabbing jello.
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
dancinfool Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
dancinfool's Avatar
 
Age: 29

Posts: 422
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 11th 2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:
Well if someone is brain dead, then they don’t have a future like ours. They are brain dead, you don’t come back from that.
It’s not about surviving on your own. its about robbing something of a future like ours. The fetus, if allowed to continue to grow, will become a functioning member of society. A brain dead patient wont.
True but I only said that because you said the quality of the future doesn't matter.. so it clearly does :P
   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
thebigmole Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
thebigmole's Avatar
 
Name: Taylor
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Orlando, Fl

Posts: 1,668
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 12th 2009, 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzie View Post

So someone who is in a coma is not a person? But then again chimps and dolphins fit under your definition of a person. As they can do all of those things as well.


And what I meant by that last statement is, it doesn't matter the quality of the future, it just matters that it is a future.
It depends on the type of comma I suppose.

As to your second point I did forget something very important, human DNA.


So are you telling me that if a woman got a test done while she was pregnant and found out that her child had a disease that would cause it to have a very short painful life she should be forced to carry that baby to term, putting it through all of that pain and putting the financial stress on the family just so that it could have a future?


"For Ignorance killed the cat, Curiosity was framed." -Caitlin McGrath

"For this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down." -Mary Pickford

"But the music's so happy!" -Little Sally: Urinetown

"If our own policies aren't supporting equality then what are we fighting for?"- Kathy Griffin
   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Gixxers rock Offline
should now be "VFRs rock"
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
Gixxers rock's Avatar
 
Age: 31
Location: Calgary

Posts: 392
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 12th 2009, 05:20 PM

Try the case scenario where the mother would die while giving birth. Both the mother and fetus have a "future like ours", both have a right to life, however a woman also has the right to decide what goes on inside her own body. By simple maths, the mother has more "rights" therefore an abort can be justified.


I am the Stig's brother in law.


Race me on Gran Turismo 5 Prologue! My nickname is patrakoffman-64
   
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Toast Offline
lostinaworldofhate
I've been here a while
********
 
Toast's Avatar
 
Name: Toast
Gender: Female
Location: Canada

Posts: 1,285
Join Date: January 9th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 13th 2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
And if you abort a fetus, it won't have a future like ours. The point is that the egg also has the potential for a future like ours, and it is within our power to give it that future, so by this theory the morally best thing to do is for all women to try to be pregnant as close to 100% of the time as possible, to create the maximum number of lives. And even if you don't buy that, it still follows from your theory that birth-control is immoral, because it is preventing life in the same way that abortion is.
That's what I was going to say.

I haven't read all of the replies, but another is this: That "innocent" man walking down the street wasn't harming anyone. A fetus is harming the pregnant woman and quite possibly the father and people who care about them. It's sucking nutrients from the woman and causing her great discomfort. What about childbirth? I can't imagine that's too pleasant. You have no idea how terrifying I see childbirth as. If I ever have children I'm going to adopt because I could not go through with childbirth, it's disgusting, violating and ridiculously painful. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.


Heaven is high and earth wide. If you ride three feet higher above the ground than other men, you will know what that means. ~Rudolf C. Binding
   
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
Kryptonite Offline
Hmph
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Kryptonite's Avatar
 
Name: Alex
Gender: Male

Posts: 541
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 14th 2009, 10:32 PM

Basically what you are saying is that killing a person early ruins their future.

A legit argument it might be, but you could say by using protective sex you are 'killing' the chance of having the child, and that child that would have occurred would have ruined their future.

I'm kinda in a rush, so if that didn't make sense, PM me and I'll explain it moree.


Alex
[Click to PM me.]


"If I go crazy then will you still
call me Superman
If Iím alive and well, will you be
There holding my hand
Iíll keep you by my side
With my superhuman might...
Kryptonite"

<3




   
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
hopefaithlove Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
hopefaithlove's Avatar
 
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Location: United States

Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 6
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 16th 2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigmole View Post
A person is a living thing that can do at least two of the following things:
Breath on it's own
Think for itself/make decisions
Communicate/ not necessarily talking
So an infant who cannot make decisions is not a person? So someone could rightfully kill them? A person who was in a coma is not a person? Really?


There is always hope. PM me anytime.
SH Free since 10.20.08
   
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
thebigmole Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
thebigmole's Avatar
 
Name: Taylor
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Orlando, Fl

Posts: 1,668
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 16th 2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefaithlove View Post
So an infant who cannot make decisions is not a person? So someone could rightfully kill them? A person who was in a coma is not a person? Really?
Okay if you had read my comment carefully you would have seen I said at least TWO. Besides I certainly think that an infant is capable of thinking. Babies are smart, they figure out that when they cry they get things so they do so.

As I said before it depends on the comma. Someone who is brain dead, well would we consider a corpse a person?


"For Ignorance killed the cat, Curiosity was framed." -Caitlin McGrath

"For this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down." -Mary Pickford

"But the music's so happy!" -Little Sally: Urinetown

"If our own policies aren't supporting equality then what are we fighting for?"- Kathy Griffin
   
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
hopefaithlove Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
hopefaithlove's Avatar
 
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Location: United States

Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 6
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 16th 2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigmole View Post
Okay if you had read my comment carefully you would have seen I said at least TWO. Besides I certainly think that an infant is capable of thinking. Babies are smart, they figure out that when they cry they get things so they do so.

As I said before it depends on the comma. Someone who is brain dead, well would we consider a corpse a person?
Wow, you must not know much about babies. Sometimes they don't know what they want or know what they NEED. They cannot make decisions for themselves.

I know a few people who have been in a coma, and I know a girl who currently is in a coma. Two people I know have come out of the coma when they were expected to die and be braindead forever.

Obviously your argument makes no sense.

Why should someone kill an innocent baby?


There is always hope. PM me anytime.
SH Free since 10.20.08
   
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
LlamaLlamaDuck Offline
Llama Lover/Skittle Minion
Jeez, get a life!
***********
 
LlamaLlamaDuck's Avatar
 
Name: Louise
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Scotland

Posts: 6,046
Blog Entries: 295
Join Date: July 14th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 16th 2009, 06:48 PM

I have not read all of the posts here, I don't have the time or patience so I'm not sure if this has come up.
We talked about this in school once and got onto how people like the pope are so publicly against it. But what does the pope know about life in the city?
The people who write about how awful abortion is, don't know anything about the circumstances surrounding it. Sometimes, yes, it is just a stupid mistake that the woman got pregnant and abortion is her solution.
But in circumstances of rape, many women would want to erase all memory of what happened and if that means killing the child of the person who abused them, then they are willing to do that.
Also if the child is going to be born with severe disabilities, or a terminal illness (not sure if you can detect that before birth) there will be no quality of life and in some cases, death is the best option.
Basically, I'm saying it's all about the circumstances. The people who come up with these theories have their hearts in the right place, I'm sure, but there is no way they can cover every possible situation with their theories. There will always be exceptional circumstances.


Throw those curtains wide
One day like this a year would see me right


We are the rainbow
Or click here for some grovelling.
   
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Hi_ImJordan Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
Hi_ImJordan's Avatar
 
Age: 30

Posts: 145
Join Date: January 26th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 16th 2009, 07:50 PM

I really hope that, in your paper, you have more support for your argument than this so called "theory"
   
  (#28 (permalink)) Old
thebigmole Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
thebigmole's Avatar
 
Name: Taylor
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Orlando, Fl

Posts: 1,668
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 17th 2009, 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefaithlove View Post
Wow, you must not know much about babies. Sometimes they don't know what they want or know what they NEED. They cannot make decisions for themselves.

I know a few people who have been in a coma, and I know a girl who currently is in a coma. Two people I know have come out of the coma when they were expected to die and be braindead forever.

Obviously your argument makes no sense.

Why should someone kill an innocent baby?
How can you possibly know what goes on in a baby's head? Besides even if a baby can't make decisions it can still do the other two things.

If you are brain dead you are essentially dead, if you can call a brain dead being a vegetable then why would we consider that a person. There are VERY rare circumstances when a person has recovered from brain death. Anyway it doesn't matter because a fetus is not a baby, a fetus is not a person that has lived a life and had a tragic accident and is now brain dead. A fetus, though I prefer to use embryo since the majority of abortions occur during the embryotic period, is not a person.
It's a little clump of cells that can grow to become a person but does not get more rights than the grown woman that has made herself a life.


"For Ignorance killed the cat, Curiosity was framed." -Caitlin McGrath

"For this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down." -Mary Pickford

"But the music's so happy!" -Little Sally: Urinetown

"If our own policies aren't supporting equality then what are we fighting for?"- Kathy Griffin
   
  (#29 (permalink)) Old
Lizzie Offline
Volunteering Officer
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Lizzie's Avatar
 
Name: Lizzie
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 4,700
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 17th 2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi_ImJordan View Post
I really hope that, in your paper, you have more support for your argument than this so called "theory"
Well actually this is a pretty well known theory in debating abortion. Don Marquis uses it in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong. Itís pretty well known. So itís not just some ďtheoryĒ that I just pulled out of no where.




Interested in becoming a staff member? Feel free to PM me, or apply HERE!
::Teen Help Member Since 2006::
::Staff Member for ten years::
~Blessed Be~
   
  (#30 (permalink)) Old
hopefaithlove Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
hopefaithlove's Avatar
 
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Location: United States

Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 6
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 17th 2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigmole View Post
How can you possibly know what goes on in a baby's head? Besides even if a baby can't make decisions it can still do the other two things.

If you are brain dead you are essentially dead, if you can call a brain dead being a vegetable then why would we consider that a person. There are VERY rare circumstances when a person has recovered from brain death. Anyway it doesn't matter because a fetus is not a baby, a fetus is not a person that has lived a life and had a tragic accident and is now brain dead. A fetus, though I prefer to use embryo since the majority of abortions occur during the embryotic period, is not a person.
It's a little clump of cells that can grow to become a person but does not get more rights than the grown woman that has made herself a life.
A fetus IS a baby. A baby is created the second the egg and the sperm meet.

People who think abortions are okay just blow my mind. It's murder.


There is always hope. PM me anytime.
SH Free since 10.20.08
   
  (#31 (permalink)) Old
thebigmole Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
thebigmole's Avatar
 
Name: Taylor
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Orlando, Fl

Posts: 1,668
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 17th 2009, 02:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefaithlove View Post
A fetus IS a baby. A baby is created the second the egg and the sperm meet.

People who think abortions are okay just blow my mind. It's murder.
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Nope I don't believe abortion fits that definition considering it's not illegal, and while a embryo may be human it is not a human, just like my blood or skin cells. Besides your definition of a baby is your opinion, though it is not scientifically sound at all, it's your opinion and you can't use your opinion to make a law.

I don't see why people who are anti-abortion can't just not get abortions themselves and let other women with different views make their own decisions about their own bodies. I'm not trying to force you to get an abortion. You can believe whatever you like, even though ignoring science is a little silly. However you cross a line the second you try to force your beliefs on others.


"For Ignorance killed the cat, Curiosity was framed." -Caitlin McGrath

"For this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down." -Mary Pickford

"But the music's so happy!" -Little Sally: Urinetown

"If our own policies aren't supporting equality then what are we fighting for?"- Kathy Griffin
   
  (#32 (permalink)) Old
Nightblood. Offline
jus drein jus daun
I've been here a while
********
 
Nightblood.'s Avatar
 
Gender: She/Her
Location: United States

Posts: 1,829
Blog Entries: 37
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: Defending Pro-Life with the FLO theory. - December 17th 2009, 10:47 AM

If we're playing the "protective sex could be killing potential life" then what about periods? Every month a woman loses an egg, one at least, that could, if fertilized, be potential life. It could have a future.
But really, the future goes in many different ways. The future isn't uncontrollable. We decide if we want to skip classes or attend, those affect our future. We pick what we eat; mcdonald's or something healthy. Those affect our future as well.
But many choices are not up to a child. Anyone under 18 (in the US) has someone making SOME decisions for them. Even if an embryo (which is really what it is) is considered alive and human it under the care of it's mother. It's mother that either way is going to be making it's decisions for the next two decades or so. So really, it's the parents decision as to what future this embryo will have, if one at all.



"We all have battle scars, Finn. Suck it up and build a brace for yours."
   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
defending, flo, prolife, theory

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.