Well put.
You know what he was getting at, cmon....
Hypothetical: If abortion were illegal, a woman who wants to have an abortion could not. Thus, she is being forced to carry the child to birth.
Im sure your argument around this will be "Who forced her to have unprotected sex?"
The answer is, no one forced her to have unprotected sex. But the government is forcing her to have the baby (if abortion was illegal).
an egg that is the first glance of a human
So if they can take care of them we better kill them.
I thought you were pro-choice
I don`t support the death penalty, but you bringing the DP to the conversation shows that you can`t see the diference between an innocent baby and a murderer.
Agree, as long as the birth control method doesn`t include abortion
agree, and I think the children have some rights that are independent from the economic reality of the parents, and I also think the government should take care of protecting those rights.
Why not, it's already considered a racist act.
haha man, I'd agree to that.
See, this is the compromise America needs.
I am not in favor of extra embryonic cells being created in the first place. For pregnancy purposes, only fertilize the number required for the implanting process. Any more becomes a disregard for life.
It comes back to responsibility.
DR, You are a libertarian, right? Isn't one of the foundations of libertarianism the right to make ones own decisions, but being responsible for the outcome? Responsibility is what separates libertarians from liberals. Liberals promote irresponsibility.
People are so smart about certain things, they become complete dumbasses. The possibilities are endless for stem cells. This whole bull ethical conversation is just that--bull .
If we stopped trying to define shades of gray (because that always works in every context, right?) and just stick to a criteria we've used for 99.9999% of our existence, this becomes a non issue.
A human is born when they are born. And they are born when they come out. Simple as that. If you draw the line there, and take two steps back, you realize how ing re ed arguing about abortion and embryos and fetuses (feteese?) are.
Some babies are born at six months and survive. Some babies are aborted at seven or eight months. So one is human and one is not?
Ancient Germanic custom was even more hard-assed than CBF -- it held that the baby isn't a person until someone has fed it.
the mom feeds it the first day it is inside her
Our Gothic forebears weren't as subtle and knowing as you, ducks.
It sounds fishy the way you phrase it because you call both scenarios "babies"
If you say a baby is born at six months and survives, and a fetus is aborted at seven or eight months, it makes more sense from a superficial perspective.
But my point remains the same and the answer to your question is, as far as the legal definition of human, yes.
Obama is right, move along people. move along.
I'm still waiting for Smeagol to tell me what cases of murder he's against.
Abortion is not a partisan issue for me. Whatever my political leanings, I am for personal liberty, and in my opinion only, the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot do with their body, even in pregnancy.
I know, thats touchy and ignorant for a lot of people that argue a fetus is life and so on. But thats my opinion and Im en led to it.
If you legislate against abortion, thereby forcing people to have unwanted kids, do you think thats somehow going to make young people reconsider having unprotected sex?
I dont. So now instead of abortions, youre replacing that number with broken, ignorant, unwanted drains of society.
Moreover, on a more philosophical note, I dont value human life that much. Especially ignorant human life.
Finally, abortion doesnt mean to me. I was just clarifying GGAs statement, whether I agreed or not. I think this entire argument is pointless, if its legal, great. If not, oh well. It was never an option in my life at any point and it never will be.
I would love to walk through life expecting everyone to conform to my standards of living and decision-making, but thats a delusional pipe dream. Some people are much, much smarter than me, some people are much, much dumber. I'd love if everyone had the same personal responsibility I do, but they dont, and there is nothing a government can do to change that.
All a ban on abortion would do is fill the state foster system's around the country, and I am sure there a few unadmitted people on this forum who have had that experience.
I would only support abortion in a few cases. Like when the pregnancy is the result of rape or if the pregnancy can be a big threat to the woman's life. I would also support it if a diagnostic shows that the fetus have a serious malformation, that would sooner or later, cause the death of the baby.
If a couple just decided to have unprotected sex and that resulted in the woman's pregnancy, then they should keep the baby. Choices come with consequences, when they chose to have unprotected sex, they should take responsability for their actions. If they really aren't prepared to have the kid, then give him for adoption.
Guys like Hitler and Pol Pot come to mind.
So you are ok with abortion right up until minutes before the baby is born?
Againt?
I thought you wanted me to tell you the cases of murder I'm in favor of.
I'd say I'm against almost all cases of murder. Aren't you?
there that stupid question again..
Whats with you and this imbecile quest to find a timeframe suitable for aborting fetuses? All your asking here in implicit fashion is, when exactly (human) life comes to be, arent you? So why dont u just say it outloud and be done with it? The best answer to that question probably is- somewhere between conception and birth- but since nobody knows exactly at which specific point, the line is set arbitrarily by consensus and scientific facts. If you can give good reason as to when life is actually created, a reason so good that the scientific community world wide will accept it, then you go right ahead and argue those reasons. If you dont manage to do so convincingly then i will take the right of choice of an undoubtebly living person, over the right of an en y of whos status im not certain off.
Last edited by InK; 03-13-2009 at 11:26 AM.
Almost....Whats the point of arguing with people who can't follow their premises to its logical conclusions? If all life is sacred( my presumtion), then how does one justify taking life in some exceptional cases? The only possible answer would be that the right of choice, the right of individual to take control over his/her own life ( and even end it if they so please) outweights the sacred nature of life. But that is not called murder, but suicide.
You are probably advocating the death penatly arent you? If somone does not respect the values i hold dear, i will out of pure outrage disrespect them as well. That will show how serious i am with my beleives? Gimme a break.
cbf said this:
therefore, my question is valid.A human is born when they are born. And they are born when they come out. Simple as that. If you draw the line there, and take two steps back, you realize how ing re ed arguing about abortion and embryos and fetuses (feteese?) are.
Oh, by the way, have you ever seen pictures of a 20 week old baby? That is the date you think it is ok to kill an unborn baby . . . that is a date where unborn babies look pretty human to me.
I'm trying to understand directly from the people who do not oppose abortions, when do they think it is ok abort.
It is a legitimate question. GGA and balijuana believe 20 weeks is the right mark.
All your asking here in implicit fashion is, when exactly (human) life comes to be, arent you? So why dont u just say it outloud and be done with it? The best answer to that question probably is- somewhere between conception and birth- but since nobody knows exactly at which specific point, the line is set arbitrarily by consensus and scientific facts.
I have never read any scientific paper that said life begins at week 20 of a pregnancy.
Week 8 is as far as I've read.
If you can give good reason as to when life is actually created, a reason so good that the scientific community world wide will accept it, then you go right ahead and argue those reasons. If you dont manage to do so convincingly then i will take the right of choice of an undoubtebly living person, over the right of an en y of whos status im not certain off.
I can't give good reason, that is why I would argue at conception. Because we simply don't know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
