Yeah, I used the term "deprived", as in the adjective, not "deprive" as in the verb.
As do both of the quoted examples I lifted from the Collins English Dictionary, you mook.
(Social Welfare) lacking adequate food, shelter, education, etc
We aren't discussing social welfare, so the concept of social deprivation is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
That slip helps reveal your crafty debate tactics.
That slip helps reinforce the assertion that your reading comprehension requires significant improvement.
The basic point is parents are creating needs when needs themselves were never needed.
This is, to be quite frank, nonsensical drivel.
Hunger is the result of a need, a result of lacking.
Hunger, as a human experience, is the result of a certain set of hormonal and chemical changes in the human body. It is simply a conscious or unconscious psychological manifestation of biology. It can be as a result of need, but isn't necessarily. See my previous example- a rat with its hypothalamus removed will be perpetually hungry, even whilst it eats itself to death.
Hunger can be viewed as pain.
I note the subtle rephrasing here to try and deflect away from the earlier criticism, but you're still making an unfounded assertion here. If you want to argue that hunger can, and in this context should, be viewed as a type of pain, you need to make a convincing argument, either biological or philosophical, for doing so. You haven't so far, which leads me to believe that you can't. Which renders the assertion intellectually worthless.
Is that not a discomforting situation?
Nice weasel words. Are you going to try every sort-of-synonym in an attempt to save your abortion of an argument, or do you want to just call it here and bury the f*ckiing thing like you should have about a page ago?
By asserting "hunger is not pain"
Biologically, hunger isn't pain. That is categorical, indisputable fact. If you want to argue otherwise (most probably from a philosophical perspective as you won't manage from a biological one as you're demonstrably wrong), the onus is on you to provide a compelling justification. If you are unable to, then as previously mentioned your assertion is intellectually worthless.
Just because the fetus can form no opinion at that time I suppose it can't form one at a future date. Ridiculous.
In order for someone to decide whether or not they wish to live, they must be in a self-aware state which allows them to rationalise a decision. Personally I believe that any mentally competent consenting adult should be permitted to end their life on their own terms however they wish.
Either way, a presupposed outcome for or against the creation of new life is an unsolvable philosophical dilemma because an entirely hypothetical individual is not capable of decision making until it ceases to become hypothetical, at which point the decision of whether it wants to be alive has already been made for it.