 |
| |
|
rowdyrjp
Mastermind
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 04:17 AM
Location: canada
Posts: 787
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Trisha6
I'm with you!! Abortion is murder. How is it, that when a pregnant woman is killed, liberals like Katie Couric can say how sad it is that a women and her child were murdered, but if someone goes in to have an abortion, its just a choice? Its the same thing. It is murder. Everyone who says it is about a choice is right, only the choice they are talking about is not correct. The choice is about getting pregnant in the first place, and not counting rape, it is always a choice to get into the situation that makes you pregnant. What about the human baby's choice? |
Apparently we are supposed to accept that the baby has NO choice. This sickens me.
Just because the child is so small and weak, and in need of life support {from mother} IN NO WAY means they should have less protection under the law!!!!!!
If you are hurt in an auto accident... and need life support {respirator etc.} until you heal from your wounds.... would your family be right to just "pull the plug" because it was too inconvenient waiting for you to recover? NO of course not ... we would not allow that.
Hell we have laws to protect the weak and injured. Should we protect children less?
I have never heard ONE pro-abortion person keep up any justification for this butchery once you concede rape and a women's life in danger. Those are their TWO favourite arguments. So what I have done {in the past} is suggest to them ... OK in those two instances fine... we allow abortion... but in no other.
You know , I am sure, what their response usually is right.
"No .... cause, um, it is still the woman's right to choose...um..."
When you point out to them that what they are choosing {since we have eliminated rape and life in danger from the argument} is a sloppy and cruel form of contraception... they simply have no answer.... THEY CANNOT JUSTIFY THIS.
It is time our politicians hand this issue over to the people.
Hold nationwide referendums. Take it out of the courts and out of the legislature. Let society VOTE on this issue. Then we will know what people truly believe in.
|
Decide if the path to a better future lies in building a better war machine or in building the relationships that will make the war machine obsolete! |
|
07-29-2003 06:22 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
mystic
Evil Queen
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 03:17 AM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357
|
Hi Rowdy! This seems like the appropriate place to put this:
'Roe' Seeks Reversal of Abortion Ruling
Wed Jun 18, 6:25 AM ET
By LISA FALKENBERG, Associated Press Writer
DALLAS - The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.
"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."
"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.
Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message.
Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned.
"I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation.
McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.
McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.
McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute.
The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
He who angers you conquers you!! (A. Einstein) |
|
07-29-2003 11:23 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
mystic
Evil Queen
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 03:17 AM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357
|
Jamie Leggatt, B.A.
INPM Webmaster
Scott Peterson’s murder trail raises important question: Is it possible to murder an unborn child?
Scott Peterson will soon go to trail for a double homicide for the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, who was due to be delivered February 20. According to California law, if a pregnant woman is killed and it results in the death of the unborn child, the crime can be ruled a double homicide.
This law clearly has implications for abortion. If I were pregnant and decided that I didn’t want to have the baby I was carrying, I could legally get an abortion, even at eight months. That’s my right and every other woman’s right to choose. The law tells me that there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, partial birth abortions, although dangerous, are still legal in this great country of ours.
I see the incongruity between these laws. If it an unborn child can be murdered, then someone will need to redefine the term abortion. Because aborting a fetus and murdering an unborn child seem much too close for comfort
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay....Id like to speak my mind...but I dont want to heavily debate this...this debate has been going on for sometime now and it seems to be getting pretty much nowhere but let me explain where I sit on this subject...
First off....for me personally, I would never get an abortion....it isnt something I would consider unless certain circumstances warranted it....BUT...the reason I am not for making it illegal, is that I do not feel it is my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I realize some people feel that babies are human at conception....and thats great that some feel this way...but thats is the whole debate. Also as it can be construed as a double muder if one kills the mother and kills the child...but it can only be a double murder if the child was at a certain week, if the child is not seen as viable then only one murder applies....the mother's not the child.
This may change with the new law sitting in front of the Supreme Court right now...but where would that draw the line?
Now this was the reason I posted the above article, I found it very interesting, and Rowdy you might be familiar with Jamie Leggatt, as she wrote this, I believe, in a Canadian paper.
Lets face it...woman use condoms and they are not always effective....One of my good friends got pregnant using a condom...she has her daughter...but she wasnt necessarily ready nor planning on having her. I have also had another friend get pregnant while using birth control....she was married, so naturally there was no question she was gonna keep the baby...
But for me...well I have a son....I would never have an abortion...but I will not tell another woman what I feel is best for them...its not my place. Nor do I feel it is the place of a male dominated government to tell me what is right for my own body, or for any woman's body for that matter.
I applaud the people that feel as if abortion is wrong....but I will never strike down or lash out at another for having one....maybe they were not ready, maybe they used protection and it didnt work. I feel as if we have too many mothers on welfare now because of children they could not afford. And for the very simple fact, that we cannot afford to have woman reverting back to backalley abortions....that would be a step backwords.
I feel the best thing to do is a bigger and better nationally funded program for prevention for teens and thers that are not financially prepared or ready to have a child. Prevention is more of the key....but as for the abortion itself....I prefer it to be done soon after conception...as it usually is done by the 3rd month.....but I as a person do not feel I have the right to tell another what they should ro shouldnt do...nor do I think any government should either.....I feel the government has enough control...this isnt something else I am willing to give them.
PLEASE....this is the way I feel...I respect everyone's choice on this matter...so I certainly hope others will respect my view on this also.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
He who angers you conquers you!! (A. Einstein) |
|
07-29-2003 11:49 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
rowdyrjp
Mastermind
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 04:17 AM
Location: canada
Posts: 787
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by mystic
Hi Rowdy! This seems like the appropriate place to put this:
'Roe' Seeks Reversal of Abortion Ruling
Wed Jun 18, 6:25 AM ET
By LISA FALKENBERG, Associated Press Writer
DALLAS - The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.
"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."
"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.
Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message.
Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned.
"I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation.
McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.
McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.
McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute.
The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980. |
Hi mystic, I had heard that the " Roe" of Roe vs Wade was now pro-life. I had not however heard that she was challenging the decision in her case!!!
I will be very interested in seeing how this develops.... Perhaps there could be an approach here that Canada's legal system could try as well.......
|
Decide if the path to a better future lies in building a better war machine or in building the relationships that will make the war machine obsolete! |
|
08-05-2003 07:32 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
mystic
Evil Queen
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 03:17 AM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357
|
Originally posted by rowdyrjp
1. Well that is the question right? Is a baby {still in the womb} a person or are they just a part of the mother's body? I think I can settle this one way. If the baby can survive outside of the womb {and with modern Neo- Natal intensive care units earlier and earlier babies are being saved} than the baby CANNOT be considered a part of the mother. In this case the mother is a care provider much like medical personnel. I use the example of nurses and doctors who have patients under life support.... they cannot decide themselves that it is just TOO much trouble so they are gonna pull the plug.... NO that would be murder wouldn't it?
I would agree with you here! Look.....let me tell you something....About 15 years ago, I got pregnant, only I didnt know I was.....I went to the doctor (it was my first pregnancy and it was before I was married to my husband now, before I even knew him)...he said I wasnt pregnant, and he gave me some meds to get my period started...well about five days later, I started bleeding BAD...I went to the hospital, and they said I was pregnant....I was bedridden at that point....almost 4 months along....the meds he gave me??? Well I miscarried because of them.....I went to a lawyer, and he said that since they could not prove the the child would be viable outside the womb...I had no case....
So you tell me.....when is a child considered viable? It wasnt 4 months in my case...so when is it?
2. But don't we do this every day mystic? We have laws telling people what they can and can't do ALL through society.... otherwise we have chaos. If we decide that a certain action is harmful and MUST be stopped... there is nothing wrong with passing laws to forbid it. That is how a society functions.
Yes.....but laws are brought upon us by social norms......I mean you can take drugs for example....at one time thye were legal...(long ago)...and then as time went on they became illegal...marijuana for example a few years back ...you could get caught with it and it wasnt a big deal....now you get caught with it and its a HUGE deal.....it depends on the social norms how laws are enforced and made.....but abortion was made legal for the fact that woman did not believe it was right for a male-dominated gov't telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.....It has never been proven that child is a person before a certain amount of time....so we dont really know that it is the wrong thing to do.....does that make sense?
---------
As for the back alley grotesquerie you bring up.....
ALL THOSE DOCTORS AND WOMEN WERE FILTHY MURDERERS!
I really can't sugar coat this. They broke the law and participated in a brutal disgusting practice. Often the women themselves died from these procedures. It is not that I do not have compassion for them dying ... BUT it is tempered by the fact that THEY WILLINGLY PARTICIPATED whereas the babies were assaulted and butchered
Some woman felt it was their only choice Rowdy.....you have heard of Margaret Sanger havent you? If not...you might want to read up on her on the web and see how and why she brought upon birth control for woman.....see what happpened to her own mother for haveing TOO many kids because she had no choice.
There are consequences in life. If a woman becomes pregnant then she and the father have an obligation to provide for this child as best they can or surrender the child up for adoption so that parents WHO can do this WILL.
But you have to know that not always the father is around to help.....this is the case so many times.....too many times. What happens if the man takes absolutely no repsonsibility? A friend of mine has two children, her husband walked out on them....and he does not even see his kids anymore....she has no idea where he is to even collect child support....so she was on welfare until she found a good enough job to get off and try and raise them....she struggles everyday to manage....she is not the norm. Some woman do not have the gumption to get off welfare and make more of their life....is this what we want? Are we supposed to tell a woman that if she cannot afford to have this child much less raise it, that she has to anyways? Would if she took every necessary precaution and still ended up pregnant but did not want to have it? Are we supposed to tell her she HAS to?? Is that really right?
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
He who angers you conquers you!! (A. Einstein) |
Last edited by mystic on 08-06-2003 at 05:32 PM |
|
08-06-2003 05:28 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
MrJukoVette
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 04:17 AM
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2559
|
Originally posted by rowdyrjp
I know for some this is a difficult and murky issue.
It is difficult to decide whether to allow to prohibit abortions country-wide.
Not for me. I look at abortion as one of many forms of murder. The justifications for murder are basically irrelevant .... one either did it or didn't do it.
Embryon is not alive like we are, so when you kill the embryon it's not like killing a man. It's not a murder in usual understanding of this word.
If your life is in danger {self defense, woman's life in danger due to illness/condition during pregnancy} then it is not murder.
To me, abortion is a surgery. Every surgery is bloody and disgusting... but it's just a surgery, terminating growth of unborn child. Whether it's in self-defense (???) or for any other reason.
But to take another life out of convenience sake..... that is cold blooded.
That's not convenience. If mother can NOT handle a child, if she is not married, if she is poor... why make her and her future child unhappy?
As for women who did not want children..... there are millions of people waiting to adopt..... adoption allows the pregnant woman to walk away from the responsibility of child rearing and avoids the unnecessary act of abortion/murder.
It doesnt work that way. There are a lot of new-born children thrown out by their parents - nobody wants them. Parents who want to adopt usually pay money for somebody they know to become pregnant and give birth to a child in 9 months, so that they are sure about child's health. Few families adopt kids from orphanage.
The whole "part of my body" thing, bothers me. I don't get it. After a relatively short period of time, the child has its own brain...its own heart... its own needs. The mother provides nurturing and sustenance just like they do after the baby is born. While in the womb the child if fed through the umbilical cord... AFTER birth well.... this is an excellent question actually:
If a woman breast feeds .. could she argue that killing her infant would be nothing more than abortion? After all the child is still dependent on her body for sustenance.....{ I know it sounds absurd}
That's where the difference is. Child outside mother's body can be fed with any milk, not only mother's, as well as other food for children. Child already has his mind building up, and self-definition developing. After the child was born, killing him is a murder. Not before.
POINT: In the same way ... once a child has developed in utero for a certain number of weeks we have the technology to care for them OUTSIDE of the womb. Therefore any abortion at that stage and beyond SHOULD be considered a severe human rights violation and murder.
After a certain number of weeks we can safely remove the embryon without harming mother neither violating human rights neither killing anybody.
Do you think pro-abortionists would accept such a compromise?
Before x-number of weeks {where x is defined as the limits of medical science for saving a baby} abortions can be considered a choice issue.
After x-number of weeks... abortions would be the homicide of another person.
What x-number are you talking about?
BTW.... my first child was born less than six months into my wife's pregnancy. My wife had toxemia and her own internal organs were being damaged. An emergency C-section was performed. My daughter Genevieve came into this world at a whopping ONE pound and FOUR ounces {about the size of a brick of butter}. She was able to survive and grow and went to JK this year. Obviously Geni was a person in her own right... since she was able to live apart from her mother.
There lot's of different cases and here is what i think: every time somebody applies for abortion, doctors should decide whether it should be allowed or no depending on mother's marital and social status, financial situation, and so on. I think abortions in married couples should be disallowed since there is no reason for it. Abortion should be last resort when mother, as well as her closest relatives are NOT happy about pregnancy and future responsibility. Or as you said before, for any medical reason.
Here is a lesson that can be applied to MOST every argument on any topic in these boards:
Humanity needs to develop a greater basic respect for LIFE.
Killing, whether for personal gain, political profit or religious fanaticism..... MUST be curbed.
We have been blessed with an amazing gift.... this LIFE we live. without a fundamental respect for it we truly are doomed to blood and misery. [/B][/QUOTE]
|
08-12-2003 02:01 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
1young11
Veteran
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 09:17 AM
Location: Illinois
Posts: 326
|
This topic really bothers me...
If a "fetus" even at conception is not human, what is it? Is it a dog?, cat?, monkey?, pig?, elephant?, no... obviously not. It is a HUMAN, just at a different level of developement. It's like saying a 4 year old little girl is not as developed as a 45 year old woman, so if we want to kill the little girl we can... she's not fully developed. I know some people are going to say that is not the same, but how is it not? That little baby, even at conception is a human being. 3 days after conception isn't that baby going to have the same DNA as she will when she is full grown? It is a little baby girl, and it is not her fault that she is so young.. the thought of killing a little girl is disgusting...
It is no mystery that having sex can produce children. Everyone knows that. If the mother is not in a position to raise a child, she should not be engaging in an activity that can give her a child, even if it is protected, because we all know that it doesn't always work. Its like ordering ice cream and then getting upset that its cold, or eating 5 pizzas, and then getting upset because you gained some weight.... sex produces children, it is not a mystery... if someone can't afford to have a child they should not have sex. Murdering an innocent baby b/c the mother made a bad decision... how is that justifiable... again murdering an innocent baby is disgusting.
How much of a part of the mother's body is the baby in the 1st place. For starters the mother gave the baby permission to live there when she had sex. Secondly, they have different DNA, they could be a different gender, they have different fingerprints... Everything about them is different, they only have one thing in common... location. The baby is no more a part of the mother than is an adult completly dependant on life support a machine. If we assign rights to an older human that is dependant upon a machine to live, why don't we assign those same rights to a baby who is dependant on another machine(the mothers body).
There is another word for abortion: murder... the murder of the innocent baby is justified because of the baby's age, the murder of the innocent baby is justified because the baby is not as developed, the murder of an innocent baby is justified because of where the baby lives. If someone were to kill another person because of their age, or where they lived, or their developement level, aren't those crimes?
You know what it is a choice... it is the mothers choice to terminate her pregnancy. Murder is a choice, when someone kills another person, usually they chose to do so... If a mother chooses to kill her son or daughter, she should be up for 1st degree murder with the rest of the murderers in this country.
Please forgive my harsh tones, but this really bothers me, who knows who we have killed over the past 20 years... maybe the person who would have cured cancer was aborted, maybe the next Einstein was aborted, maybe the person who was going to solve the problem in the middle east was aborted... who knows?
|
08-22-2003 05:58 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
MrJukoVette
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 04:17 AM
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2559
|
Originally posted by 1young11
This topic really bothers me...
Bothers a lot of people, not me though. Why make a big deal of it?
If a "fetus" even at conception is not human, what is it? Is it a dog?, cat?, monkey?, pig?, elephant?, no... obviously not. It is a HUMAN, just at a different level of developement.
It is a human, but it's not alive yet - child didnt see real world yet. Biologically it's alive, but it's mind doesnt exist.
It's like saying a 4 year old little girl is not as developed as a 45 year old woman, so if we want to kill the little girl we can... she's not fully developed.
Little girl is a born human being, killing her is a murder. Just as killing a 45 y.o. woman.
I know some people are going to say that is not the same, but how is it not? That little baby, even at conception is a human being. 3 days after conception isn't that baby going to have the same DNA as she will when she is full grown? It is a little baby girl, and it is not her fault that she is so young.. the thought of killing a little girl is disgusting...
Why would you compare a girl and an embryo? Embryo is developed inside mother's body - so it's not a girl or a boy.
It is no mystery that having sex can produce children.
 Indeed!
Everyone knows that.
Even i do.
If the mother is not in a position to raise a child, she should not be engaging in an activity that can give her a child, even if it is protected, because we all know that it doesn't always work. Its like ordering ice cream and then getting upset that its cold, or eating 5 pizzas, and then getting upset because you gained some weight....
Excuuuuse meeee, since when desire to have a child is same like ice cream or pizza?
sex produces children, it is not a mystery... if someone can't afford to have a child they should not have sex.
Gotcha now. I dont know even one boy or girl who dont have sex for fun. You probably will have a hard time trying to change modern fashion.
Murdering an innocent baby
Nobody argues that baby is not innocent...
b/c the mother made a bad decision... how is that justifiable...
That's what is much more important - who can abort pregnancy and who can not. Low birth rate here is caused in part by legal abortions - everybody just goes for it instead of having a child, not only leaving society without youth, but also damaging their wombs and lowering chances of becoming pregnant again.
How much of a part of the mother's body is the baby in the 1st place. For starters the mother gave the baby permission to live there when she had sex.
It's not called 'live', it's rather mother developing her child inside herself.
Secondly, they have different DNA, they could be a different gender, they have different fingerprints... Everything about them is different, they only have one thing in common... location.
Ofcourse they are different (except for some part of DNA cells), that's not the question. Judging embryo-mother relation in terms of location is wrong too - we are not comparing 2 women.
The baby is no more a part of the mother than is an adult completly dependant on life support a machine. If we assign rights to an older human that is dependant upon a machine to live, why don't we assign those same rights to a baby who is dependant on another machine(the mothers body).
Now you say that mother's body and life support machine is the same. Dont even ask me to answer your arguments - they are ridiculous.
There is another word for abortion: murder... the murder of the innocent baby is justified because of the baby's age, the murder of the innocent baby is justified because the baby is not as developed, the murder of an innocent baby is justified because of where the baby lives.
It's not age - age is counted after baby is born. Same about development and location - it's simply irrelevant.
If someone were to kill another person because of their age, or where they lived, or their developement level, aren't those crimes?
DICRIMINATION! We dont kill people who live in Mexico, why would we kill people who 'live' in mothers' bodies?
You know what it is a choice... it is the mothers choice to terminate her pregnancy. Murder is a choice, when someone kills another person, usually they chose to do so... If a mother chooses to kill her son or daughter, she should be up for 1st degree murder with the rest of the murderers in this country.
So you argue that aborting a pregnancy is same like killing a child? Do you even understand that our human common sense and our language has 2 different meanings in 2 different words: CHILD and EMBRYO. We dont KILL an embryo, because it's not alive yet.
Please forgive my harsh tones, but this really bothers me, who knows who we have killed over the past 20 years... maybe the person who would have cured cancer was aborted, maybe the next Einstein was aborted, maybe the person who was going to solve the problem in the middle east was aborted... who knows?
With low quality of life in the past, with high child and birth death rate, people like Enstein were born. Since mother cant grow her child, it's less likely that this particular child would achieve something near Einstein's knowledge.
|
08-22-2003 10:11 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
1young11
Veteran
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 09:17 AM
Location: Illinois
Posts: 326
|
| quote: |
| Biologically it's alive, but it's mind doesnt exist. |
If somone is in a catatonic state, basically a vegetablem but their heart, and lungs are working, are they "alive"
| quote: |
| Why would you compare a girl and an embryo? Embryo is developed inside mother's body - so it's not a girl or a boy. |
Because the enbryo IS a little boy or girl, just younger. Its a matter of age, and developement. Where does it matter where the embryo developes, it is still a human. Its just a matter of location. It doesn't matter where you go, you are still a human... same thing with the embryo, its really just a matter
of..... real estate.
| quote: |
| Little girl is a born human being, killing her is a murder. Just as killing a 45 y.o. woman |
Why does it matter if the baby is born or not? Is the baby more of a human a day after its born, than a day before?
| quote: |
| Excuuuuse meeee, since when desire to have a child is same like ice cream or pizza? |
I am pointing out that there are natural consequences to actions... if you get ice cream don't be mad that its cold, if you eat a bunch of pizza don't be mad that you gained weight, if you had sex don't be surprised that you might have a baby. If you're going to have sex, be prepared for the consequences.
| quote: |
| Gotcha now. I dont know even one boy or girl who dont have sex for fun. You probably will have a hard time trying to change modern fashion. |
Does modern fashion include murdering babies? I am a realist I understand that people are going to have sex, but what I am saying is that if you're going to have sex be prepared for the consequences, if you get pregnant (generally speaking) it is your fault, not the baby's, so don't murder a baby to fix your mistake.
| quote: |
| It's not called 'live', it's rather mother developing her child inside herself. |
Please explain to me how the mother is developing the baby... rather it is the baby growing on its own.
| quote: |
| Judging embryo-mother relation in terms of location is wrong too - we are not comparing 2 women. |
Why is it wrong... before the child is born they have no rights... after the child is born, they are full fledged card carrying humans. what change? location. It is a matter of location.
| quote: |
| Now you say that mother's body and life support machine is the same. Dont even ask me to answer your arguments - they are ridiculous. |
No please, proceed to blow me out of the water with your response... how are my arguments ridiculus?
| quote: |
| It's not age - age is counted after baby is born. Same about development and location - it's simply irrelevant. |
Thats just what our society has deemed a more efficient way of measuring somones age. The definition of age:
"The length of time that one has existed; duration "
The child began to exist at conception, it is a matter of age, a matter of level of developement, and a matter of location.. prove me wrong, give some arguments why it is not a matter of those things, instead of just saying I am wrong...
| quote: |
| We dont KILL an embryo, because it's not alive yet. |
Then I guess the cells are just magically dividing if they are not alive. If it is not alive, then it is dead, and dead cells don't multiply.
|
08-22-2003 10:56 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
jrkiv
Veteran
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 09:17 AM
Location:
Posts: 308
|
Mr Juko, are you in favor of infantiside then? You say that the unborn are biologically alive, but their 'minds don't exist' how is that different from an infant? Tell me what point does it's 'mind exist,' birth? That's absurd. What change occurred in the mind of the baby during its trip down the birth canal? The only thing that changed was your perception of the baby (ie now you can see it). An individual's humanity is not a matter of perception ... humanity, unlike beauty, is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Actually from your argument you have exposed a quality in yourself that you share with infants, you attribute different qualities to things based on whether or not you can see them. To a baby, objects don't exist if they are out of sight, to you, babies aren't human until you can see them. Tell me, how does your perception of a baby or a fetus physically change that person?
|
08-23-2003 12:57 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
