I don't think you're responsible for their death - the person who caused them to be in the drowning in the first place is responsible. The most you are responsible for is not saving them. You can still be called a bad person for not saving the life, but you aren't responsible for their death.
It will if we carry on the way we're going. After Brexit, the UK will most likely have stricter border control and harsher immigration laws, but there's a lot of uncertainty around that, as the amount of Muslims are already quite high.
As of April last year, in the UK, there were almost 3.5 million Muslims, not including those in care homes/prisons/council houses. This makes it the second largest religion. Of course, this is nowhere near Christianity, but Muslims tend to be more devout in their faith, with the vast majority of Christians not attending Church/just calling themselves Christian.
Some European countries are more likely to become Muslim. For example, Belgium, where 2/3 of people would describe the immigration as an invasion, but won't do anything about it as their news/media portrays this view as xenophobic. 7/10 believe Muslims want to impose their way of life.
In Germany, the median age of Muslims is significantly lower than non-muslims, even compared to other European countries, and the amount of children they're having is much higher. If the amount of Muslim immigration were to continue at the same rate, almost 20% of Germany's population would be Muslim.
Although Muslims may not 'take over' as such, they will hold a significant amount of political/social power compared to other groups, and will no doubt change the culture and values in all of Europe - with some affected more than others, but every single European country has been affected by Islam, and each country's culture will continue to change.
the distress is often from others who have yet to understand the world around them.
If I was unclear, the distress I was referencing was the distress caused by the belief that you are in the wrong body and are uncomfortable being the gender you are. It is similar to the type of distress someone with body dysmorphia might experience - it's the distress of feeling like something's wrong.
this is often caused by other people who have yet to turn their brains on
There are high rates of suicide among transgenders both before and after hormone treatment/surgeries. If what you're saying is true - that transgenders become suicidal solely based on other's reactions towards them - then it wouldn't make sense for suicide rates to drop immediately after surgery (a point where they may not pass as cisgendered), and then increase again a few years later, when they would most likely not be recognised as trans.
In San Francisco there is a 50% attempted suicide rate among young transgender people. In England, 48% have attempted suicide. In Australia, Japan and India there are similar statistics. Are we to say that in each of these places, transgenders are treated with the exact same amount of disrespect? Are we going to say that transgenders in San Francisco are treated the same as transgenders in India?
There are many reasons people could be transgender - we aren't 100% sure. Some transgender people have the opposite gender's makeup of white matter, which is why I would say transgenders should be allowed surgery as it could be beneficial, and I believe that is a choice an adult can make for themselves.
However, some have problems in the areas of the brain associated with body dysmorphia and severe depression. In these cases, the person transitions, believing that will solve their problem, but they still have to deal with the fact that they are biologically a different gender. This then of course makes it clear that they do have a mental illness that, unfortunately, we don't have a way of eliminating.
The links between being transgender and having severe depression become quite clear when you look at the statistics. 6.7% of the general US population have severe depression, compared to an estimated 26% of the transgender community.
If this isn't enough to convince you that not being accepted isn't the only reason transgenders are prone to suicides, a study in India concluded that only around 15% of their suicides could have been directly caused by their family's refusal to accept them, which still leaves the suicide rates significantly higher than normal.
Maybe I haven't made it clear, but I do believe that for a large amount of transgender people, surgery and hormones could be the best option, and they have a right to pursue this treatment - however we can't deny the fact that there are underlying mental problems that cause this and, for some transgenders, they still feel the effects of these even after surgery. Transgenders should be treated as humans, and I am incredibly sympathetic to anyone suffering. But to deny the fact that there are mental issues is an insult to people who have gender dysphoria.
Transgenderism has been declassified as a mental disorder by the World Health Organization last year.
Have we not considered the reasons this could've been changed? It has become more common to accept being transgender as something trivial, like sexuality, so it is understandable that they would declassify it in the wake of the transgender pride movement.
But if that can be a reason to believe there is nothing abnormal about being transgender, then the fact that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lists gender dysphoria could be a reason to disagree.
"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." - Chapter 8:12
no, why would we ban them? Yes people can get hurt, but people can get hurt from falling off of a ladder? I have a trampoline in my garden that my siblings (6,9,13) use all the time. Just tell people to not be idiots and let them go on a trampoline
The definition of a mental/psychological disorder is "a behaviour or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning". It is safe to say that feeling as though you are in the wrong body is significantly distressing.
Being transgender causes distress and is something that is psychologically abnormal (less than 1% of people), so it can be defined as a mental disorder.
Another reason is that there is a strong case to be made that it is linked to body dysmorphia (where someone goes to exceptional measures thinking that a part of their body is flawed) and severe depression. There isn't lots of data around the subject, as transgenderism is a fairly new phenomenon, but most sources say that there are exceptionally high rates of suicide among transgenders (some studies say up to 50%), and, although the rates drop for a year or two after surgery, they go right back up a few years later. At the end of the day, pretending there is nothing abnormal about being transgender is harmful both to actual transgender people, and society in general.
Having said this, transgender people should still be treated with respect and dignity, the same way someone with anorexia or depression should be treated with respect. The fact that someone is suffering from a mental disorder does not change the fact that they are human and should be treated with basic levels of respect.
Yes, but Islam as an ideology supports terrorism:
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves" 48:29
"slay the idolaters wherever you find them...take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush" 33:91
"Fighting is prescribed for you" 2:216
"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" 8:12
Yes people are terrorists, and most Western Muslims are not terrorists. Yes, it is people who are terrorists, but you can't deny that the Qur'an, in many places, encourages terrorism and violence against non-Muslims.
I'm not against Muslims - but I am against Islam. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but the ideology of Islam supports terrorism.
These are real quotes from the Qur'an translation (Mohsin Kahn translation)
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter." - 5:33
"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." - 8:12
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - 9:29
"Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it" - 2:216
"Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (those who accept Gods other than Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." - 9:5
"If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter. That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah." -33:60-62
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves..." - 48:29
I could go on to list more verses that incite violence, but I doubt that would be necessary.
The fact that we "will not find any change in the Way of Allah" suggests that the 'Way of Allah' will always be this violent, including terrible slaughters and no mercy.
It is clear that some regressive Islamic teachings are taught by Muslims. 23% of British Muslims want Sharia law in the UK - Sharia law includes many violent punishments (e.g. amputating a thieve's hand, or stoning someone to death for adultery). 39�lieve wives should always obey their husbands.
Yes, this means that 77% of British Muslims disagree with Sharia law, and 61% protect the rights of a wife - so I will agree that most British Muslims are peaceful. However, it is clear that it is a bigger problem among Muslims than any other demographic. This can't just be dismissed as a coincidence. In countries such as Afghanistan or Pakistan, an estimated 99% of Muslims agree with Sharia law. The more power Islam has in any given country, the more violent/extremist Muslims are, and the less rights women/gays/non-muslims have.
Maybe this doesn't class as terrorism, but it's not exactly fun to think about. The problem is that in every Muslim country, women are oppressed, gays are murdered, and people can be stoned to death for blasphemy. The Qur'an contains countless violent quotes that justify Islamic terrorism. The ideology of Islam is equivalent to terrorism. Yes, the vast majority of Western Muslims are not terrorists, but Islam itself is.
Yes, however, they can still be considered a human. If someone is in a coma, they can't think, so is it okay to say they shouldn't have rights?
The difference between cows/chickens and a fetus is that a fetus (even if it can't think) is a human. The only difference between you and a fetus is that you've been alive for a lot longer.
Also, I think you've put your argument on the wrong view, it says you think abortion should be banned.
Well that's almost as bad as saying suicide's okay. We should let the fetus die because, if it grows up, it might feel suicidal. Some people might be able to pull through - if you give them a tough life, it will be bad, but they can make something out of it. Give them no life, and they can't.
I agree that it would be a horrible life, but you can't ask the fetus whether they'd rather live or die - you can't make that decision for them, so you go with the default and let them live. Maybe you would prefer to die, but not everyone would and, if you have no way of asking, how can you make a decision on their behalf?
I believe that most of the money that funds abortion clinics should be relocated to try and help these unwanted children find better homes and be adopted.
I disagree with abortion - simply because I believe that, by destroying a fetus, you are destroying a human.
The most common reasons people tend to agree with abortions (from what I've seen) are:
-the fetus isn't a baby - it's just a cluster of cells
-what if the woman was raped?
-what if the child would have a bad life because of a condition it has?
-what if the woman can't look after the baby?
I would say that, even if you think a fetus doesn't classify as alive - it is still a human. The only difference between a fetus and a baby is that the fetus is just a few months/weeks earlier in development. I would say that, even if you don't want to call it a 'living being', it is still a human being, and should be treated as such.
Nobody would deny a baby its basic human rights simply because it's not a child yet. Nobody would deny a child its basic human rights simply because it isn't a teenager.
Nobody would deny a teenager its basic human rights simply because it isn't an adult.
It is wrong to kill a fetus, a baby, a child, a teenager and an adult. The only difference between all of them is that they are in a different stage of development/life.
And how do we decide when the fetus becomes a living being and not a cluster of cells? At 5 weeks when it has a heartbeat? At 8 weeks when it starts to move? At 9 weeks when it can open and close its fists? At 13 weeks when it has facial features? At 16 weeks when you can feel its movements? Maybe it's when it can survive outside the womb. But how do we know when that is? It could be at 22 weeks, with a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 with 10-35%. Or 24 with 40-70%. Maybe it's best to wait until it's above 90% at 27 weeks. Or should it be at precisely 21 weeks and 5 days - the earliest it's survived?
In order to allow an abortion, there should be an exact date/time when it stops being legal - when the fetus is considered alive. It is impossible to put an exact time on it, unless you believe that life begins at conception.
If a woman was raped and became pregnant, I would be immensely sympathetic towards her - and would understand why she would want to abort the baby. Of course she wouldn't want to be carrying the child of a rapist, a living reminder of what she's gone through. However, I would strongly encourage her not to have an abortion. In my opinion, a life is a life. It is wrong to destroy a life. If you are to destroy a fetus (even if it makes your life a hell of a lot easier) you are essentially destroying a human life.
Many women choose to get abortions because their baby has been diagnosed (before birth) with some sort of condition. I know this argument is common as, in Britain, over 90% of babies who are diagnosed with down syndrome before their birth are aborted. My response to this would be that, to deny a fetus its right to live simply because it could end up being blind, or even just have autism, is to place the value of a human being with one of these conditions as lower than a healthy being. You are essentially saying that, because your child will have down syndrome, they aren't worth the time/effort. I understand that maybe some people will say "it's not that simple", and maybe it isn't, but you're still denying a human being the right to live, because it's difficult for somebody.
Maybe you think their life isn't worth it but, considering the fact that the fetus has no say in the matter and can't influence your decision, how is it right to make that decision on behalf of your unborn child?
The final reason that I have often heard is "what if the mother couldn't look after the baby?". To this I would say, you are in an unfortunate situation - you don't want your child to end up in a bad home or in foster care - but you can't look after them yourself. I would suggest either keeping the baby and trying to find support from a helpline or charity or find someone to adopt them. Obviously, it is difficult to find a suitable home for your child to grow up in, and possibly even more difficult to let them go. However, I firmly believe that it is worth it a million times over if you are letting somebody live.
At what point do you consider it a life then? At 22 weeks when it has just under a 10% chance? 24 weeks with 40-70%? Is it only living when it reaches 21 weeks and 5 days (the earliest a baby's survived)? There must be a specific time/day during the pregnancy when you can say the fetus/baby is alive. Otherwise there's no safe time to point at - so you couldn't have an abortion.
No, but you would treat a baby as a human, you'd treat a kindergartner as a human, a teenager as a human, and you as a human.
The only difference between a fetus and a baby is that a fetus is going through earlier stages of life/development. The difference between a baby and a kindergartner is that they're at different stages of life/development. The difference between a teenager and an adult is that they're at different stages of life/development.
Maybe you shouldn't treat a fetus as though it's a baby - but you should treat it as a human.
I would agree that abortions should be allowed if the mother/ is going to die. However, I don't believe that there are other situations where a baby should be aborted. I wouldn't put abortion under the category of healthcare.
I get that privacy is an issue - but in terms of abortion, it's not private to the government/hospitals. If someone wants to kill their unborn baby, it shouldn't be a choice they can make because they don't want a baby, they're not ready or it'll affect their mental health. I think that a large amount of money that is used for abortion clinics should be instead used for either adoption agencies or support systems for people who think they aren't ready.
