Home - List All Discussions

Abortion kills unborn children/babies

Get used to it, Sigma

by: yoda

Because you're going to be seeing it a lot from now on.

We don't want you to run out of things to talk about!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

It's kind of sad how pro-aborts like to insist that ending a life isn't killing. Can't they just face it? Apparently not.

reply from: yoda

You're right, tabitha. The truth is just too painful for them, so they must live in denial.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I agree. What ELSE would it be?

reply from: Alexandra

If they admitted it, they'd have to eat a nice big helping of crow, that's why.

reply from: Sigma

Ending a life is killing. Abortion kills the fetus in the womb. Hmm... no crow in sight.

reply from: bradensmommy

Ending a life is killing. Abortion kills the fetus in the womb. Hmm... no crow in sight.

But to you abortion is still A-OK huh?

reply from: Sigma

No, but restricting it goes against what I believe our society values. Freedom.

I don't like certain things, but I love the freedom that allows us to do them even though others, even the gov't, doesn't want us to.

reply from: yoda

It's wonderful to see that the "FREEDOM TO KILL (BABIES)" is at the top of your list of "freedoms" to protect.

Don't you mean "The freedom that allows us to do them "unto others"? After all, that's the freedom you're espousing here, the freedom to KILL OTHERS.... namely unborn children and/or babies.

reply from: Sigma

The freedom to kill in that situation, yes. If anyone is attached to me in that way I would never question I had the right to kill them were that the only way to remove that connection. I would have the right to disconnect them, even if it meant their death regardless.

We have the freedom to kill others in certain situations. I would never question I had the freedom to do so were that the only way to stop you from being connected to my body. I would never believe you have a right to be there against my will. Never, ever, ever.

reply from: AshMarie88

That's just selfish, Sigma. Sorry, it's the truth.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, it is. Selfishness is not a virtue, but we are not required to be virtuous. Forced virtue is not virtue.

reply from: Alexandra

I'll tell you something, Sigma, selfishness, immorality, etc., have a way of biting you in the rear end eventually....

reply from: Sigma

Undoubtedly. Regardless, if I do not have the option to be immoral how can I choose to be moral?

reply from: yoda

That's a totally ridiculous, assinine comparison. Gestation is a universal requirement for every human being, not a hypothetical science fiction daydream. It's disgusting to me that anyone would even try to compare the two things.

There is NO other situation in which we have the legal right to kill an innocent person who is no threat to our life. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about killing people, that is an invention of a perverse and demented court. To use the word "freedom" in the same sentence with the killing of babies makes me sick to my stomach.

reply from: yoda

Don't worry, immorality will always be a choice. When will you choose morality?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

The freedom to kill in that situation, yes. If anyone is attached to me in that way I would never question I had the right to kill them were that the only way to remove that connection. I would have the right to disconnect them, even if it meant their death regardless.

We have the freedom to kill others in certain situations. I would never question I had the freedom to do so were that the only way to stop you from being connected to my body. I would never believe you have a right to be there against my will. Never, ever, ever. So you believe that even though it is indeed killing an unborn child, a woman may get an abortion just so she can afford that big shiny car she's always wanted?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater

It is also at the complete and total sufferance of the woman who is pregnant. Every pregnancy requires a woman, who should have the option at any time to end her participation.

Oh? This is from a New Jersey law.

A section of our criminal law provides that ......... the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises
and
The use of deadly force is not justifiable in the defense of premises unless the actor reasonably believes that: The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession.

Deadly force can be used in the defense of property. The fetus is infringing upon the rights of the woman and she should be able to defend her right to her body, even to the point of killing another who cannot be disconnected any other way, imo.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about living at the expense of other’s physical well-being, either. The fetus does not have the right to do that.

laurissamarcotte

I believe that because she is the one who has to go through the pregnancy she can discontinue support any time she pleases for whatever reason she wishes. If abortion is the easiest method on the woman to discontinue that support, so be it. If premature birth is easiest on the woman, so be it.

reply from: AshMarie88

ANY time, Sigma? Even 7-9 months?

If you think she should have the right to MURDER her CHILD (not fetus) when he/she can live outside of the womb, your head should be checked. I don't know why anyone would be okay with the murder of a child.

reply from: Sigma

Any time, AshMarie88. While the fetus is inside her using her organs to live she should have the option of discontinuing her participation. Whether this means having an abortion or induced labor is up to the doctor's discretion, based on what is less risky for the woman. Late term abortions carry many more risks than early term abortions.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

If the woman is going to go out and screw her boyfriend, she needs to pay the consequences. I know, I know. I'm the spawn of the devil for saying that. And how do you know abortion is easy? The women I know have had abortions regret it with every fiber of their being.

reply from: RePit

You are not the spawn of the devil for saying that.

However - if that is the reason you object to abortion; then you would have to allow abortion for rape.

Biased sample fallacy. The woman I know who have had abortions do not regret it, although some have feelings of guilt - they know it was the right thing to do.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I don't support abortion for rape because I believe life begins in conception.

quote:
although some have feelings of guiltquote:
So what does that tell you?

reply from: RePit

I don't support abortion for rape because I believe life begins in conception.

In that case, why does it matter if the woman "is going to go out and screw her boyfriend, she needs to pay the consequences"? Why did you say that?

Seems to me it is a moot point as to how she got pregnant. If woman got randomly pregnant without doing anything you would still object to abortion.


So what does that tell you?

It tells you exactly what I stated; that they know they made the right decision, but they have feelings of guilt.

Be honest: have you ever done something that made you feel guilty, but you know it was the right thing to do?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I said that because she DOES need to pay the consequences if it is her fault in the first place. (yes, Sigma, I know; pregnancy is not something you need to have in order to be used for teaching blah blah blah) AND because life begins at conception. Even though I can understand they want the abortion, the abortion is just going to make them even more depressed. Yes, I would.

reply from: yoda

Why? Because you say so? Because the SCOTUS has decreed it? What gives anyone the moral right to take the life of another innocent human being? Why is life so cheap to you?

You didn't see the word "innocent" in my post? Try reading a little slower......

NO fetus is EVER an active aggressor! It is HELPLESS, remember? It was PLACED THERE, remember? It is absolutely and totally dependent upon it's mother, remember?

So now, you the big bad defender of poor helpless women of the world want to preserve their legal right to kill those nasty, awful, invading, plundering, viscious babies???? How dare they do that to women???

For millions of years that right has been taken for granted. Only now, in this "enlightened" age, do we see the spectacle of an all out attack on the tiniest, most helpless of all humans by you cheerleaders of hedonism.

No wonder you want to eliminate all emotions from this debate, your positions are so disgusting they would make a graverobber vomit.

reply from: yoda

We must prove our opinions here now? Is that a new requirement?

reply from: Sigma

Because I say so. It is my opinion that she should have the option.

I saw it. The fetus is attached to the woman’s body. Whether the fetus intended to be so or no is irrelevant. The woman may still disconnect anyone attached to her, even if that person had no involvement in the attachment process and was innocent of wrongdoing. Her rights still allow her to defend her bodily integrity.

This is relevant... how?

Actually, I am defending women from people like you. You wish to use the law to require women to continue their pregnancies. I am also defending them from the gov’t, who wishes to direct, command, infringe and interfere with arguably the most intimate and private decision that a woman will face: whether or not to bear a child.

Abortions have been performed for as long as there has been a written language, and likely long before that, passed down as “women’s secrets” mother to daughter orally. There were abortion recipes written on the walls of tombs. Search for “ancient abortion recipes” and you will find that women have, likely, always desired to control whether they continue their pregnancies or not, and likely will always desire this.

It is only recently that anything like “protection from conception” ever existed in widespread form.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Now that's just scary 0_0

reply from: Sigma

...
Read my post, please. Reading comprehension for the lose.

I am not pretending anything. I have stated I believe the woman to be the most important participant in the pregnancy relationship and consideration should be given to her before any consideration is given to what is growing within her.

It is an issue of a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child. This extends before and after conception.

Of course. You wish to use emotional language to draw an equivalence between abortion and infanticide. Your argument could not stand without such emotional language.

It is an issue of the woman's choice whether to bear a child, or have an abortion.

You seriously suck at debating.

reply from: Tam

I agree. What ELSE would it be?

Hey--are you Tab's sister or something? Welcome to the forum.

reply from: Tam

Ending a life is killing. Abortion kills the fetus in the womb. Hmm... no crow in sight.

That's far from the truth, Sigma, and you know it. You know that many abortions do NOT kill a fetus. Some kill an embryo, some a zygote, etc, etc. That's why you have to come up with silly non-words like "zef" to describe a child in the womb.

The truth is: abortion kills a child.

I know that's really hard for you to admit. But "abortion kills a fetus" is not always true, whereas "abortion kills a child" IS always true (unless, of course, we consider FAILED abortions in which the child lives--the "dreaded complication" as they say).

reply from: yoda

And you offer no "proof"? Hypocrite!

Indeed! Is that why you posted CRIMINAL STATUTES??? Because you consider unborn babies to be on a par with CRIMINALS??? My, how very "relevant" of you!!

Ah, your old mind-reading act again. You can't point to any post where I've stated a position on that, so you rely on your good old crystal ball, right? Well, I have a suggestion as to where you can put it....

Murder has been performed longer, your point is what.........???

reply from: Sigma

Your semantic argument is addressed in other threads. Kindly do not pull this one off-topic.

If you prefer, I can say “abortion kills a zygote”, since zygote can refer to all stages. Or I can be specific and say “abortion kills a zygote, embryo or fetus”.

reply from: Tam

Your semantic argument is addressed in other threads. Kindly do not pull this one off-topic.

If you prefer, I can say “abortion kills a zygote”, since zygote can refer to all stages. Or I can be specific and say “abortion kills a zygote, embryo or fetus”.

Actually, the only way it would be correct, I think, is to say abortion kills a child, or abortion kills a baby. If you want to do some convoluted semantic dance to pretend otherwise, please go on dancing--it's kinda funny to watch--but don't think that the ones trying to control the language are those making a perfectly clear, true, and plain statement such as "abortion kills a child."

It's the new dance craze in abortion land--the "zef"! It's like the shuffle, in that you try to shuffle away from the truth into a slang term that isn't accurate in the first place--but it's also like the limbo, because it makes everyone around you say, "How low can ya go?"

Edit: by the way, that IS the topic of this thread. I'm not pulling it off topic! The topic IS how you avoid the truth with your zef dance! Hello?!

reply from: yoda

The topic police strike again!

reply from: Tam

The irony is that this IS the thread topic.

reply from: Sigma

Well, then, you have your opinion.

I’ve never defended the use of “zef”. I will use it if you wish me to, however.

The issue we were discussing was whether pro-choice people can admit that abortion is killing, not the semantics of what we call what the woman carries in her womb. That is discussed in other threads.

reply from: Tam

Well, then, you have your opinion.

Care to disprove it? Think you can?

No, not at all. It wouldn't be any more accurate than any of the other things you try to say to avoid using "child".

The issue of the thread is that you deny that abortion kills children. I was making that point beautifully, and you just don't like it. Oh, well!

reply from: Sigma

Disprove that you think something? No. I can disprove that it is a fact, however.

You said: Actually, the only way it would be correct, I think, is to say abortion kills a child, or abortion kills a baby.

If we disregard that this is your opinion, which cannot be disproven, it is obvious that it is also correct to say "abortion kills what the woman carries in her womb", or "abortion kills a zygote". There are aberrations, but this is true in the vast majority of the cases.

Read the start of the current discussion, where I came in. That is the discussion at hand.

reply from: Tam

Disprove that you think something? No. I can disprove that it is a fact, however.

You said: Actually, the only way it would be correct, I think, is to say abortion kills a child, or abortion kills a baby.

If we disregard that this is your opinion, which cannot be disproven, it is obvious that it is also correct to say "abortion kills what the woman carries in her womb", or "abortion kills a zygote". There are aberrations, but this is true in the vast majority of the cases.

Well heck, I guess if we're including phrases instead of single words, there are countless ways you could wrangle a correct sentence out of that. None of those ways would include the term "zef".

Are you arguing that all children are zygotes? That the zygote phase never ends? Well, why then all the focus on "fetus"? LOL Come now, you know as well as anyone that "zygote" is the term for the stage before "embryo"--hey, correct me if I"m wrong.

Funny all this difficult wordweaseling just to come to a place where you can find a word that works, when there are already two that work just fine: baby and child. You just don't LIKE it. That's why you're going through all this.

Read the start of the current discussion, where I came in. That is the discussion at hand.

You wish! Your name is in the thread title, baby. YOU are the discussion at hand.

reply from: Sigma

Sure it would. “Zef” is short for zygote, embryo or fetus, so one can say “abortion kills a zef”.

I began using it and it stuck.

Ok.

zy•gote (z g t )
n.
1.The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
2.The organism that develops from a zygote.

It can refer to all stages of pregnancy and, technically, outside the womb as well. It is not as exact as specifying within the womb as generalizing ‘fetus’ does, but it does work. You're not so great at this whole "debate" thing.

Going through all what? You may use it if you wish, I simply don’t myself. You asked my opinion on its use and I gave it.

*sigh* Tam, the current discussion came about because I responded to a poster. The thread title is not the current discussion.

reply from: yoda

This one is clearer:

Main Entry: zy·gote Pronunciation: 'zI-"gOt Function: noun Etymology: Greek zygOtos yoked, from zygoun to join Date: circa 1887 : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

Wrong, flea-boy! I started this discussion, it's MY discussion, and it IS about you!

reply from: Sigma

Yodavater, why you even think you’re even relevant in this discussion is beyond me. It’s fairly obvious you have no debating skills or even make any logical sense.

reply from: Tam

Sure it would. “Zef” is short for zygote, embryo or fetus, so one can say “abortion kills a zef”.

I guess I was assuming we were only talking about real words. Mea culpa! If we're going to use pretend words, we can pretend anything is accurate.

I began using it and it stuck.

So you're more than happy to use an inaccurate term just to avoid using an accurate one that might (gasp!) remind people that unborn children are the same children as born children, just a little earlier.

So you're proposing that we start using "zygote" to describe human beings? I think you're on your own, there. Just as "child" can technically refer to a human being at any stage of development, including adulthood, "zygote" and "human being" and "person" can also refer to a human being at any stage of development.

Do you feel better now? I hope saying that sort of thing makes you feel better about your unimpressive responses, because if not, it accomplishes nothing. Part of good debating is knowing when to concede a point. You've proved your point that "zygote" can be used to refer to any human being. Bravo! I concede. It's the first time you've proved anything to me, and I'm almost proud of you, if not for being so disgusted with you in general for your tendency towards personal attacks. Now, how about you concede that of all the actually accurate terms to describe an unborn human being, "child" is the best term despite your emotional issues about it.

Going through all what? You may use it if you wish, I simply don’t myself.

You prefer an inaccurate term that you think gives you some sort of emotional edge, to a perfectly accurate and appropriate term that you think gives those who care to protect children's lives some sort of emotional edge, by reminding people that what is at stake is, in fact, children's lives.

reply from: Tam

Although, to be perfectly frank, if you use "zygote"--NO ONE will EVER assume you mean all humans, nor even all unborn children, but will rightly assume you are referring to the "zygote" stage of development. You will now say, "That's my point! If you use "child" no one will ever know you mean unborn children, but will assume you are referring to born children!" To that, I say, "No, only proaborts will assume that, because they have an emotional problem with the fact that children exist before birth."

reply from: Sigma

If we agree on using it, I have no problem with that.

As long as we both know what we are talking about and it is used simply as a term to describe what we are talking about, I have little problem with what you use. I believe pro-life people, at least in this forum, use “child” as more than simply a descriptive term and instead use it to make a point in and of itself. It also promotes confusion, as we make distinctions between in the womb and without in this debate. To use a term without that distinction is just nonsensical.

No. You asked for other ways of phrasing that sentence so I provided them.

I don’t believe it is the best term to describe what we are talking about, especially in this debate when a distinction between within the womb and without is an important distinction. If you wish to use “unborn child” you can be my guest, if it is used simply as a descriptive term.

I disagree that it is appropriate, especially in this debate. In an intellectual debate, making emotional points is not only irrelevant, but dishonest.

I agree that the term promotes confusion since it is generally used as referring specifically to one stage, which is why it would be inappropriate to use that term to describe all stages.

You’re right, I do say that. In this debate, the distinction is important in legal terms and in moral terms. Using “child” to refer to both promotes confusion, in addition to being a dishonest attempt to demonize your opponents and support your flagging arguments elsewhere.

reply from: Tam

If we agree on using it, I have no problem with that.

Uh, no, I don't think I agree about using pretend words!

As long as we both know what we are talking about and it is used simply as a term to describe what we are talking about, I have little problem with what you use. I believe pro-life people, at least in this forum, use “child” as more than simply a descriptive term and instead use it to make a point in and of itself. It also promotes confusion, as we make distinctions between in the womb and without in this debate. To use a term without that distinction is just nonsensical.

Explain why you feel it is nonsense to use "child" to refer to children. Is it just because it is politically inconvenient for you to admit what they are?

I don’t believe it is the best term to describe what we are talking about, especially in this debate when a distinction between within the womb and without is an important distinction. If you wish to use “unborn child” you can be my guest, if it is used simply as a descriptive term.

What is the best term, in your opinion?

I use "child" to refer to children. When it is necessary to make a distinction, I often use the adjectives "unborn" and "born" to differentiate. When it is not necessary to make a distinction, I don't necessarily make one. I oppose killing children. ALL children--no qualifiers needed. I don't need your permission, and I am not your guest.

I disagree that it is appropriate, especially in this debate. In an intellectual debate, making emotional points is not only irrelevant, but dishonest.

You've tried and failed to make the point that it's dishonest. If you want to keep trying to claim that, I will assume your motivation is simply to smear prolifers. What, in your opinion, is a more appropriate (accuracy implied) term?

You’re right, I do say that. In this debate, the distinction is important in legal terms and in moral terms. Using “child” to refer to both promotes confusion, in addition to being a dishonest attempt to demonize your opponents and support your flagging arguments elsewhere.

Demonize my opponents? Hardly. They are responsible for their own views, and my accurate characterization of those views can hardly be seen as demonizing them. If they resemble demons, it is not because of my remarks, but their own.

If you are confused, it is because you tend to forget that children are still children no matter how young. Maybe clue-ing in to that would help alleviate the massive confusion you seem to be experiencing.

Abortion kills children. It's a fact. It's not a slogan, like "my body, my choice"--it's a cold, hard fact. When I state that fact, it is an attempt to draw attention to that fact. If you consider drawing attention to the facts to be a dishonest game--well, you sound just like most proaborts, there.

reply from: Sigma

Then you don’t have to.

I feel it is nonsense to use a word with no distinction in a debate where the distinction is important. You are doing it to make a point, not to further the discussion. In an intellectual debate it is dishonest to imply a point in this way, imo, as well as to use it in a way to demonize your opponents.

Fetus, used broadly for all stages. There is generally no need to distinguish stages of pregnancy since pro-life people disagree with abortion at all stages. It also applies only to what the woman carries within her womb, not without.

In this debate, it is always necessary. Neither you nor I support killing those outside the womb, so to imply that I do is dishonest.

It would be polite to ask my permission in this case.

Poor, diluted Tam. That you disagree with my point does not mean I failed to make it. I made the point about what I believe pro-lifers use the term for. You disagree. You were unable to show that is not your intention, and it is pretty clear from the threads around the forum that it is the intention to demonize your opponents and that your argument cannot stand with these emotional terms. But I digress, this is not the thread for this disagreement.

And here you refer to your opponents as demons. You have eyes but you cannot see.

You’re useless to talk to. You see what you wish and you ignore the rest. As Aristotle says: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

It is obvious you do not fall in this category.

In an intellectual debate such as this, it is a slogan. It is used to rile up crowds and does little to further debate. It is a nothing statement.

reply from: Mugen

I think there is a broader point being missed here, which is that abortion kills humans. Whether or not a fetus is a child can be debated until the cows come home, but its humanity cannot be denied.

reply from: Sigma

Agreed. I don't think you'll win any friends among pro-lifers for this statement though.

reply from: yoda

When the simple, plain truth riles up crowds, then the crowds ought to be riled up. Your way is to conceal and disguise the truth to keep the crowds in the dark, so they will not get riled up about things that ought to rile them up.

When a society is so cold, selfish, and unfeeling that it does not get riles up about the killing of innocent unborn babies, then something is terribly wrong with that society. Either they are truly ignorant of what is going on, or they have no feelings and no conscience. There have been such societies before, and we have all seen the result of their inability to get riled up........ six million Jews got gassed, for example.

This society is on the brink of becoming as bad as that society, and some of us don't want to see that happen. The fact that others take joy and satisfaction in that situation just makes it more difficult.

reply from: Sigma

Your statement might have more relevance if we were speaking to crowds, but we are engaged in an intellectual debate. Your emotional language, “truth” or no, has no place here. If you cannot engage in an intellectual argument and defeat pro-choice arguments with a compelling argument without emotional rhetoric supporting you, then I believe you are on the losing end.

You are both irrelevant and inadequate to this debate, yodavater. You have no argument.

reply from: yoda

Wow, flea-boy, you just broke my heart with that one! You're really on a roll, aren't you?

Shall we discuss YOUR inadequacies? Oh no, that would take up two or three pages..........

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I agree. What ELSE would it be?

Hey--are you Tab's sister or something? Welcome to the forum. Yes, we are sisters

reply from: yoda

Anything can be debated, no matter how true or false it is. The fact that the word "child" has for centuries been defined to INCLUDE unborn humans in no way prevents anyone from debating it, does it?

Is that what you meant?

reply from: yoda

Say flea-boy, I'm curious about something. Don't you find it a burden to be so many things at once? I mean we all know that on this forum in additon to being one of the longest winded posters we've ever seen...... you're the topic police, the word cop, and now you're the debating quality judge as well......doesn't all that just wear you out?

reply from: Mugen

Anything can be debated, no matter how true or false it is. The fact that the word "child" has for centuries been defined to INCLUDE unborn humans in no way prevents anyone from debating it, does it?

Is that what you meant?

No, but that is probably accurate. All I mean is, that a fetus can scientifically be proven to be humans. And all humans are inherently worthy of protection. A fetus may be a child as well, but it doesn't need to be for us to be right.

reply from: yoda

True. "A rose by any other name", as someone said.

On the other hand, for those not already as convinced as we are of the need to protect unborn children, the use of the most direct, plainest language possible might be important in reaching them. And since dictionaries are the only reference works by which anything can be "proven" about such terms of the vernacular, I think it behooves us to emphasize that unborn children indeed are just that.

reply from: Tam

Anything can be debated, no matter how true or false it is. The fact that the word "child" has for centuries been defined to INCLUDE unborn humans in no way prevents anyone from debating it, does it?

Is that what you meant?

No, but that is probably accurate. All I mean is, that a fetus can scientifically be proven to be humans. And all humans are inherently worthy of protection. A fetus may be a child as well, but it doesn't need to be for us to be right.

Actually, I think the entire point of the pro-life argument IS that abortion is wrong precisely because it kills children. That it kills children is a fact, not a point that can be legitimately debated, no matter how it pains the prochoicers. What is conceived IS a child--that is what is conceived, carried, born, etc. What is killed in abortion IS a child--and regardless of how old s/he is, s/he exists and exists as a child. That is the fundamental truth of the abortion issue: a child is conceived and then killed before birth. Some folks think that's okay, other folks think it's no more okay than killing children who have already been born. Some folks think it's the mother's choice to kill her children if they are not yet born; other folks think nobody has the right to kill any children, period. To contend that a child doesn't exist is ridiculous, as without a child, the abortionist would have no one to kill. To contend that an embryo isn't really a child is likewise nonsense, as an embryo is merely a phase of development through which every child passes unless s/he dies before reaching that stage.

I agree that all humans are worthy of protection, but the fact that a fetus is a child is inseparable from the fact that s/he is a human--that is what s/he is: a human child. The entire point is that s/he is the very same child that s/he will be outside the womb. That there is no fundamental change in him/her when s/he is born; birth merely signifies a transition from one phase of development to another. In both phases--just before birth and just after, the liveborn child is dependent upon his/her mother, but could survive without her. In both phases, s/he is an individual human child. The entire point of the pro-life argument is that if you turn back the clock 24 hours, the child is the same child you see today--and that if you keep turning back the clock, day after day, s/he is still the very same child. That if you turn back the clock all the way to his/her conception, s/he is still the same child.

Welcome to the forum, also.

reply from: yoda

And apparently it does pain them mightily, as they go to great lengths to make illegitimate arguments that fly in the face of all logic and science, not to mention dictionaries.

reply from: Tam

And apparently it does pain them mightily, as they go to great lengths to make illegitimate arguments that fly in the face of all logic and science, not to mention dictionaries.

LOL And if you refuse to submit, you are described as having nothing to offer but rhetoric! As if using words to mean what they actually mean is "mere" rhetoric. Boy, we see that word tossed around a great deal lately. What's it mean, anyway?

So when our writing is skillful, persuasive, and effective, the proaborts complain that we're being dishonest because we refuse to use their pet terms--terms which are, for the most part, not merely dishonest, but actually designed to distract attention from the actual issue.

It's dishonest, in the opinion of the pro-abortion side, for prolifers to refuse to use dishonest terminology and instead insist on accurate, straightforward descriptions of every aspect of the debate. They think we're the dishonest ones, because we insist that yes, Virginia, abortion really does kill babies.

The funniest part is that it is precisely those words most effective and persuasive that offend them the most--and how "honest" a pro-abort will consider a word seems to be in direct proportion to how inaccurate the word is.

Examples:

Term: child
Accurate: yes
Usage: anti-abortion

Term: baby
Accurate: yes
Usage: anti-abortion

Term: zef
Accurate: not even an actual word
Usage: pro-abortion

Term: fetus
Accurate: sometimes
Usage: pro-abortion

Term: partial birth abortion
Accurate: yes
Usage: anti-abortion

Term: choice
Accurate: a marketing slogan
Usage: pro-abortion

etcetera.

reply from: Sigma

I was using it as: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric. or loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric"

You are using the terms more than simply as descriptors. You mischaracterize what I say and respond with rhetoric; what you say in this way is empty of real meaning and does not further the debate.

Strawman. I have not required you to use the terms I do myself. I have asked there be a minimum of compromise where I believe your use simply confuses the issue but that is the extent of it.

reply from: yoda

Yes, plain talk, ordinary terms, the vernacular is all "rhetoric". I'm afraid that 1984 is still with us. Poor George Orwell didn't know how right he was! Up is down, right is left, and kill all babies!

reply from: yoda

You really don't have a point, do you?

reply from: Sigma

I do, you simply don't understand it.

reply from: yoda

You're right, I don't.

reply from: Sigma

What definitions were these?

reply from: Sigma

If you wish. This is an older issue so I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.

reply from: Mugen

Thank you, and I don't disagree with what you wrote there. A fetus would have to be a child, as it is human and is not an adult. If anything the fact that it is less developed than an infant would make it even more worthy of protection.

reply from: Tam

Thank you, and I don't disagree with what you wrote there. A fetus would have to be a child, as it is human and is not an adult. If anything the fact that it is less developed than an infant would make it even more worthy of protection.

Yes! I feel the same way. To some, the unborn child's vulnerability is reason to consider him/her expendable--to me, it is all the more reason to protect his/her life. Should we fail to protect the elderly because they may be weaker than those in the prime of life?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

If you believe that you would have to believe in freedom to rob, freedom to rape, freedom to murder, freedom to counterfiet, ect.

reply from: Sigma

No, because freedom can include freedom from being robbed, freedom of movement, freedom to live, etc.

I believe in freedom, but not always at the expense of others.

reply from: Sigma

In practice, perhaps. Freedom to live does lead to that conclusion, but a 'right to life' leads to nothing but survival.

Nope. Freedom implies life, but life does not imply freedom.

Yes.

Not of his rights, but at the expense of his emotions perhaps.

Ideally, they should never be at the expense of others but they sometimes are. Sometimes this is allowed, sometimes not, depending on the specific circumstances.

reply from: Sigma

A right to life is not more basic than a right to freedom, however, because a right to freedom leads to a right to life.

Whether you kidnap or kill, you are violating the freedom of the victim.

No, because the fetus does not have the freedom to live at the expense of the woman's body.

The woman's rights are important regardless of her emotions.

Completely ignored? I don't believe I said that.

reply from: Sigma

No. A 'right to life' is not needed, only freedom is necessary because a freedom to live is included within that.

Which is why a right to be free implies life. You are confusing points; a lack of a right to life does not equal death.

We should not accept the loss of our freedom, even if we retain our lives. Many famous men and women would not accept life without being free.

So many questions! If you are dependant on another you do not have the freedom you would have if you were not dependant, no.

I don't think I said that, though sometimes it does happen.

We're in no danger of extinction if some women do not wish to remain pregnant.

Because it doesn't matter their motivation, all that matters is the situation. Abortion is justified because the circumstances of pregnancy impacts their bodily integrity against their will.

He may have the same motivations, but is not in the same situation.

Virtually any court case should provide you with examples of freedoms conflicting.

reply from: yoda

There is no freedom called "the freedom to kill innocent human beings who pose no threat to us". To even use the word freedom in a discussion about killing babies is disgusting and perverted.

People have lived without freedom for thousands of generations. No one has had freedom unless they were alive.

You "argument" is the most perverted, sick, twisted, disgusting piece of trash I've ever seen.

reply from: bradensmommy

There is no freedom called "the freedom to kill innocent human beings who pose no threat to us". To even use the word freedom in a discussion about killing babies is disgusting and perverted.

People have lived without freedom for thousands of generations. No one has had freedom unless they were alive.

You "argument" is the most perverted, sick, twisted, disgusting piece of trash I've ever seen.

I think the only right we should all have is a "right to death" according to 'ol Sigma. Pretty sick and twisted indeed.

reply from: gdyers

I hadn't the time to read this rather long topic, but this stuck out at me.

This is a dangerous line of reasoning - the bill of rights is a restriction on the government, not on the people! It is made quite clear that the bill of rights is not a limitation, but that any and all other rights are held by the people and the states.

Rights themselves are a social construct - without society, rights have no meaning. It is society's task to delimit the rights it affords its members, and many hold abortion in some form or another to be one of them. One must justfiy logically why society must remove this right, technicalities won't cut it. Otherwise it wouldn't even be around for debate.

reply from: yoda

And where in the constitution is the government limited in it's ability to protect unborn babies?

reply from: gdyers

The same place it's limited in its ability to make everyone wear sandals on Tuesdays - if it isn't expressed as a power in the consitition, the federal government has no power to do anything. This limitation has been grossly exceeded due to repeatedly expanding the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses with no objection from the supreme court, but it should stand nonetheless.

How about this - is there a federal law against kidnapping if they stay inside one state? Nope, the only way the feds can intervene in a kidnapping is if it goes inter-state.

The issue at hand is that due to the lack of a specific mention of abortion in the constitution, it's been up to the courts to decide the rights of an unborn human. Roe v. Wade was a mistake in my opinion, it should be none of the federal government's business, but that of each state's to decide separately.

reply from: yoda

Interesting theory. Obviously you recognize that the supreme court does not agree with you.

Well at least we agree on something. As justice White said, that was nothing more than an "exercise in raw judicial power".

reply from: Sigma

Concernedparent, virtually any court case can be an example. I don't have to hold your hand in that.

If you are free to walk your dog and a neighbor has a right to forbid dogs on their property then those two rights clash. A court would examine the relevant laws and decide that your right in this particular circumstance is limited or inferior to the right of your neighbor to be free of this.

reply from: Sigma

I'm glad there are others here who understand how the Constitution works.

Don't let yodavater get you down. He and Tam are the resident trolls.

reply from: yoda

Why not? We've all been holding your greasy little hand in trying to explain to you that we don't change who we are in our lifetime. Maybe he wants "proof".

reply from: yoda

I'm sure he needs your moral support, Sig. Can you show him how to crawl up the elephant's leg?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ok, I know this was a while back, but...
If you believe that, you would have to allow the freedom to sexually assault, murder, rob, deal drugs, drinking before age 21, ect.

reply from: yoda

Yes, apparently Sig desires the "freedom" to do all those things, laurissa.

reply from: Sigma

No. Valuing freedom does not allow the freedom to infringe on other’s freedom.

reply from: yoda

WOW! You don't consider tearing a baby limb from limb to be an "infringement" on it's freedom??!!??

WOW, JUST WOW!!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Sigma Hey I thought you were prochoice! All of those things are CHOICES, Sigma, so you should allow them, according to your title. And the baby has no say whatsoever whether it wants to be put to death or not. What about it's freedom? Shouldn't it have freedom too? Oh, wait, it's not human. Just simply a blob of cells with no emotion or life. Never mind.

reply from: Sigma

No, I don’t. I value choice in the decision of whether or not to have an abortion.

Were it not attached to and living off of the physical body of another, yes. In that situation the one providing complete bodily support can make the decision to stop.

reply from: Mugen

Why does whether or not it is attached matter? The mother(and father) is responsible for creating the life, and unless she was raped did so willingly. It would be like demanding a kidney back after you gave it to your brother. Once you've taken on the responsibility, you can't take it back.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

But that is HER FAULT. When will you understand that it is not fair that an innocent child has to pay with it's life for her and her boyfriend's irresponsibility? Why is it that the child has to go through excrutiating pain all because the mother doesn't feel like walking around with a few added pounds? So what if she's hungry all the time. BIG DEAL. It was her fault that she is pregnant and it is unfair for the child to have to have it's limbs ripped off because she went and got drunk. It's unjust. End of story. Nothing you say will make it fair.

reply from: Sigma

Mugen,

Unless you have women sign a legal document releasing interest in that part of her body, you have no basis to claim the fetus has a right to use that part of her body.

As far as I know, there still must be direct consent to the removal or use of your organs. You may believe sex is implied consent to any and all consequences, but I do not.

laurissamarcotte,

Because we should not be able to require her to walk around with a few added pounds, even to save another’s life. That is the point of freedom. When the gov’t can violate personal rights as a means to an end, especially a moral end, it is fascism. Or, at least, a step in that direction.

Personal responsibility is personal, not governmentally enforced.



I don’t know how big of a deal it is to the woman in question. Neither do you.

reply from: Tam

The point of freedom, to you, is to permit any atrocity, provided it takes place in a political climate where the victim(s) of the atrocity are deemed non-persons and therefore expendable. No one is asking her to assume some burden in order to save the life of another. THAT is your violinist analogy, NOT the reality of gestation. All that is asked is that she not kill a baby. That is a far cry from asking her to assume a burden. She already has the burden--if it is a burden to her at all--and she can either live with it for a few months like a responsible, humane person, or she can choose to kill a baby to relieve her of that burden. To insist that killing babies is wrong EVEN to relieve her of her perceived burden is NOT the same thing as requiring her to assume a burden she does not already have.

reply from: Mugen

I believe sex is more than implied consent, it is explicit consent. Pregnancy and organ donation are useful parallels but we should not forget that pregnancy represents a completely unique situation. Pregnancy does not merely involve use of the mother's body, it involves the mother's creation of a life. And that is key. Sex creates the life. A person receiving the donation of an organ has the ability to accept or deny the organ, a fetus has no such ability. It has no choice in who decides to create it. Let me put it another way. An applicable organ donation scenario would be if some mad scientist stole one person's kidney and put it in another unwilling person. Could the former than demand the kidney back? Perhaps through court proceedings, perhaps not. But what if they violently cut out the kidney right there with no regard for the second unwilling participates life? They'd be thrown in prison for murder. That is obviously a very outlandish situation, but then again, so is abortion. It still is a proper analogy.

And do not forget that it does not matter whether or not the mother gives consent. She can still decide to abort the fetus. Abortion is the only case where you have such blatant inconsistencies in logic tolerated in this way.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Sigma, I guess you will never feel compassion for little innocent babies who have done nothing. It is still the mother's fault nontheless, and this precious little baby has to pay it's life for her irresponsibility. I can't see why anyone would support ripping an innocent baby's limbs just because the mother doesn't feel like carrying her child. I'm sorry, I just can't.

reply from: yoda

Let's face it, folks. Sig is going to claim the "moral" right to kill unborn babies no matter how inconsistent and silly he is shown to be. It's called "closedmindedness".

reply from: Sigma

Tam,

No, what I say is my belief regardless if the fetus is considered a person. My belief is the same whether it is you, a fetus or the President that requires saving. I do not believe it is justified to save them by violating personal rights.

Now that’s just disingenuous. The violinist is already attached. Do you require the woman to continue with the attachment?

You wish to require her to continue to endure the burden, if she considers it a burden.

Yes, she can do either of these things. Whether it makes her a moral or immoral person is irrelevant. The law does not exist to make us good, kind and generous people.

However you wish to view it, you wish to require her to continue the pregnancy regardless of her personal feelings.

Mugen,

Sex does not create life, the union of the sperm and egg does. Sex is one method that allows them to meet, but conception can happen without sex and sex can happen without conception. They are separate events. Since sex does not equal pregnancy, explicit consent to one does not equal explicit consent to the other.

Consenting to sex consents to sex, it does not consent to pregnancy.

The person donating also has the ability to withhold or allow the donation, while the woman cannot. She has no control over whether conception occurs or implantation happens or whether the fetus begins using her body. It is nonconsensual.

An interesting scenario, and one that accepts that if the gov’t allows the fetus to use the woman’s body then it does violate her rights.

However, there are a couple of holes in your analogy. The pregnancy situation is an ongoing donation of resources that can be stopped were we to allow it. The situation you described is a one-time donation that the woman was unable to stop. Abortion does not recoup (nor does it try to) the resources lost already, it prevents further donation from taking place. There would have to be some sort of future donation that the woman can take action to stop, or some sort of ongoing connection that drains the woman’s vitality to be properly analogous.

Other than that, it is a good analogy.

The woman does not give consent, I’m sorry. Consenting to sex is consenting to sex, it is not consenting to pregnancy. Without this, you have no basis to claim that the fetus has a right to use her body.

laurissamarcotte,

I do feel compassion, and I have tried to explain what the reasoning is. If you do not see my point, there is little I can do to explain further. Good day to you.

reply from: yoda

And so he goes round and round, repeating the same ole tired, dumb arguments over and over, as if anyone respected them. No one does, Sig.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

If you truly feel compassion, why do you support the slaughter of them?

reply from: Sigma

I have answered this, many times. While the fetus is attached to the woman, the woman can decide to stop the connection. In the pregnancy relationship, the woman is the most important participant. Her rights are paramount.

reply from: Mugen

Sigma

I do not agree, needless to say. The union of sperm and egg can only happen naturally through sex or a form of sexual intercourse. Unnatural methods such as in vitro are irrelevant. In fact, if we go by your logic than in vitro pregnancies could not be legally aborted. Regardless, sex clearly indicates consent. The function of sex is to create life, life creation is not a byproduct. The intentions of the woman are irrelevant to the tangible realities of the physical act.

Once more, we are not in agreement. A person may withold the donation, but once the donation has been given, they cannot take it back regardless of the circumstances. Once pregnancy has occured there is no way not to consent. Engaging in the creation of life is equal to consenting to that creation. It's like saying building a house is not consenting to having the house built. It's a nonsensical concept.

Indeed. But it also accepts that an abortion is a violation of the fetus's rights. The question is which violation is worse.

Pregnancy is temporary, but I recognize it isn't perfect.

I addressed the argument that it isn't consent above. But you are right on one thing, without consent my argument does not hold water.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, but my point was to show that they are separate events. That one can happen without the other means that they are not the same event and thus it is valid to say that consenting to one event does not consent to the other. Sex does not equal pregnancy.

That is not my logic, and obviously I disagree.

“The function of sex” is not a legally defensible position, Mugen. Pregnancy can indeed be a byproduct, and an unintended one at that. Sex for its own sake is acceptable and defensible.

The point being, the woman was not able to withhold the donation of her body.

Only if one is able to control whether sex results in pregnancy. The woman cannot do this.

Except when building a building you build it with the intention of building a building. When having sex the intent is to have sex, not to create life. This analogy is flawed.

If the building is on your property, you can also tear it down afterwards if you do not want it once it is built.

Given that the fetus has no rights, the answer should be obvious. Also given the nature of the relationship, it should be obvious that the woman is the most important participant. Given that the woman would be conscious of her rights being violated while the fetus would not be (in the time frame that the vast majority of abortions occur), the answer should be obvious.

I agree, but I am not sure that is relevant in what we're talking about.

I’m not sure what would convince me of this.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Who says? Why should the baby be less important than the mother? The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that everyone is equal, no one being more important or better than one another.

reply from: Sigma

I say. It's my opinion. The woman provides complete bodily support, and I would consider anyone in that situation as the more important participant.

We are discussing compassion and morality, not legality.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

The mother gives complete bodily support to a newborn, also. A newborn cannot find and eat food by itself. So that means the mother can kill it if she finds it burdensome? Yes, but the Bill of Rights applies to legality rooted compassion and morality. That's basically what it states. That we are all equal and we should treat one another as equal.

reply from: Sigma

No, but she can remove it from her care. When it is born, she has a myriad of options open to her that allow her to stop support of the newborn without harming it. When it is inside her, she has exactly one viable option to stop support during the time-frame that the vast majority of abortions are done.

It says the law must treat all equally. Ignoring that this does not apply to those not born, applying it equally would not allow anyone, not you not me and not the fetus, from living off of the woman's physical body against her will.

reply from: yoda

And there you have it folks, Sigma's entire basis for his support of babykilling: I say. It's my opinion".

And of course, this applies to quadraplegics as well........ the caretaker is so much "more important" than the quadraplegic that it give him/her a moral right to kill the invalid....

That's Sig's idea of "compassion and morality"......... administered with a knife to the throat.

reply from: bradensmommy

And there you have it folks, Sigma's entire basis for his support of babykilling: I say. It's my opinion".

And of course, this applies to quadraplegics as well........ the caretaker is so much "more important" than the quadraplegic that it give him/her a moral right to kill the invalid....

That's Sig's idea of "compassion and morality"......... administered with a knife to the throat.

Yoda, it doesn't matter how many times you quote Sigma, he'll rephrase it and say thats not what he meant. Oh, I mean she/he/it since they can't tell us what gender they are (how mature).

reply from: laurissamarcotte

If that is the reason she gets an abortion, she is extremely lazy. Do you think a parent should be required to have any physical responsibility(as in working to suport their child, physically feeding a newborn from her body or a bottle) whatsoever for their born child? Apparently not. It never says it does not apply to those not born. It applies to everyone in the United States, even those who are not citizens. The fifth amendment states that no person can be deprived of life without due process, as I have said before. A fetus is a person. Get over it.

reply from: Sigma

Yes. She is responsible to make a reasonable effort to find another to care for the child if she has no wish to. Given our society, any amount of effort would accomplish this. During the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are done, there is no amount of effort that will allow another to care for the fetus.

The fifth amendment would not help us in this situation. It is a State matter, not a Federal matter.

Per SCOTUS decision (and, really, common sense), the Constitution applies to everyone who is born. The fetus does not satisfy the very reasonable requirments for Constitutional protection. The woman does, however.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ok, since you're all about not forcing anybody to do something they don't want to do, why should a 13 or 14 year old have to go live in a foster home with complete strangers if her mother gets tired of the mental stress? What about HER will? She would be forced to leave her parents. It might be against her will. What about HER wants? Isn't she a woman after all? What if leaving her home would cause her severe mental stress? Whose desire is more important in that case? You're contradicting yourself. You said this in your exact words: How could it apply to the Federal Government if it applies to the States?

reply from: Sigma

The one who has to provide support.

I’m sorry, how is this contradictory? The Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal Gov’t, not to States. I never said the Fifth applies to States.

The first quote provided says: The fifth amendment would not help us in this situation. It is a State matter, not a Federal matter.

This means that the Fifth would only help us if this were a Federal matter.

The second quote says: The Fifth Amendment says much the same thing and applies to the Federal Gov't.

This means that the Fifth applies to the Federal Gov’t and says much the same as the Fourteenth. How are these quotes contradictory?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So you think a thirteen year old should be forced out of her home against her will? That is monsterous and cruel. It doesn't matter to you that she might get extremely depressed. As long as the mother doesn't have to take care of her anymore, right? There is NO court in the ENTIRE country who would agree with you on this. They would not let a mother force her teenager out of her home (with the possibility of her commiting suicide because of depression) against her will.

Abortion may be a State matter but the right to life is a Federal AND a State matter. (fifth and fourteenth Amendments.) That is what I am stating. The amendments should rightfully apply to the unborn as persons.

reply from: Sigma

The woman in question does have that right, regardless of whether or not I or you consider it monstrous and cruel. The likelihood of the child being adopted is low at that age.

I’m fairly certain you can put children up for adoption even at that age.

“Should” is opinion. They do not. The Fifth would not apply in any case of abortion because it is a State matter.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Not against her will. You don't even CARE that she might commit suicide or become severely depressed. You do not even CARE that a baby feels pain when it is aborted. You have no compassion towards anybody except the person who is taking care of the child. The Fifth is a Federal AND a State matter.

reply from: Sigma

I’m fairly sure you can give children up for adoption against the child's will.

I do care, about all of these things. That doesn’t affect that the woman in question has a right to put her child up for adoption and to have an abortion.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth (which is what we’re talking about) applies only on the Federal level.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Isn't abortion kinda, like, a federal issue...? After all, it's legal nationwide.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No, you have to have a pretty damn good reason to put your child up for adoption. A parent cannot put it up for adoption simply because they are tired of being a parent. IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH: Children have rights, too, in this counrty.You sure show it.

reply from: bradensmommy

No, you have to have a pretty damn good reason to put your child up for adoption. A parent cannot put it up for adoption simply because they are tired of being a parent. IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH: Children have rights, too, in this counrty.You sure show it.

Told ya, its like talking to a brick wall with him/her/it

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte

But they can put their children up for adoption even if the child does not wish this, correct?

Of course when they are older it is harder. When the child is just born, however, you don’t need a reason to give it up.

I assume this is sarcastic. Yes, when I have to argue for the existence of abortion it is not obvious. If we were to agree that it should exist, then we could argue over the limits we can agree on and then it would be obvious that I care. If it is a question of all or nothing, I believe all is the only moral choice open to me.

It is similar to adoption in this sense. If you were trying to outlaw adoption and I were trying to argue for its existence then I would sound like I want parents to put their children up for adoption. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want children to grow up in a two parent household with their biological parents. However, I would fiercely oppose making adoption illegal.

tabithamarcotte

It doesn’t work that way. Abortion cannot be a Federal issue because it is not in the Constitution. The US gov’t only has the power given to it, specifically, by the Constitution.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

reply from: tjlsmom

“Should” is opinion. They do not. The Fifth would not apply in any case of abortion because it is a State matter.

You know what? Someday- hopefully in the not too far off future- the personhood of the unborn is going to be established in law. It is going to be clarified. My statement is not opinion. The unborn ARE persons- unfortunately, that scientific fact was never established in American jurisprudence as far a I know. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would apply, without any doubt whatsoever, if the personhood of the unborn were established in law. The jurisdiction of the States whether or not to allow abortion would become a moot point.

reply from: Sigma

"personhood" is not a scientific concept.

This is never a moot point. Were the issue returned to the States, there would be fights to make it legal still.

reply from: tjlsmom

The one who has to provide support.

The woman in question does have that right, regardless of whether or not I or you consider it monstrous and cruel. The likelihood of the child being adopted is low at that age.

I’m fairly certain you can put children up for adoption even at that age.

This line of conversation does serve one useful purpose, laurissa. It shows the logical conclusion of the pro-choice mentality. (I sense that you see yourself as being very logical, Sigma.) If you believe that abortion can be justifiable for any variety of reasons (take your pick), then, logically, there can be no predetermined limit on abortion at all. i.e. If you can lift one restriction on killing a child, then there is always one more that some group of people will push for, for some reason they believe to be legitimate. And if killing is justifiable for one person's compelling reason, why not another's? So, ultimately, to maintain the logic you have to go beyond Roe and believe, as Sigma does, that abortion must be allowed for any reason whatsoever; you believe that a mother has a fundamental right to "disconnect" herself from her unborn child simply because she doesn't wish to give it the needed support. Then, logically, you must also apply that line of reasoning to born children; you state that a parent has the right to give up a child of any age for adoption simply because it's their fundamental right, even if the reason is merely "being tired of the mental stress" of being a parent. (Thankfully, society at large has not come to that logical conclusion of the pro-choice mentality- yet.)

Non-custodial parents are almost always required to pay child support, or go to jail- even if it means they have to severely tap into their physical resources working two or more jobs. Parents are held accountable by court proceeding if they fail to feed their child- even if it means the parents have to eat less and experience feelings of hunger in their physical bodies. If they fail seriously enough in that area, then the child may be taken away from them against their will. (In that severe a situatiuon of not being able to physically provide, they may be able to put their child up for adoption- but NOT because they're "tired of the mental stress" of being a parent. Sheesh!!)

Sigma, I'm not including your later post here because this post is long enough already, but I'm sure you can figure out which one I am replying to: It has never been "all or none" in the case of abortion. Taking an unborn child if the mother's life is in definite, imminent danger has never been illegal to my knowledge, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. The resulting death of the child is considered in that case to be an unintended result of providing lifesaving medical care to the mother.

reply from: tjlsmom

"personhood" is not a scientific concept.

It is indeed a physical reality rooted in science. Otherwise, neither you nor I could definitively be classifed as "persons". Please don't get into the "consciousness" debate, because there is no certain, knowable point at which a person acquires consciousness. The indisputable fact of science is that a human being - a person - exists from the moment of conception. We can't ever- logically - assign "personhood" based on some subjective, shifting definition of it.

This is never a moot point. Were the issue returned to the States, there would be fights to make it legal still.

Oh, sure, there'd be fights. That doesn't mean they would have a chance in hell, as long as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution were properly applied to the unborn once their legal personhood was established.

reply from: Sigma

A "person" is not a scientific entity, it is a philosophical one. "Human" is a scientific concept.

The Fourteenth Amendment properly applied would not guarantee abortion being illegal anymore than its proper application would guarantee you or I not being lawfully killed. States determine what situations someone may be justifiably killed in.

reply from: Sigma

And this is where our system of gov't excels. A reason is good enough if enough people believe it is. Conversly, if a reason is not believed by the majority to be acceptable then it is not good enough. A compromise can be agreed to, but pro-life people would have to accept that abortion will happen and so far they are not willing to do so. While pro-life people try to restrict abortion, pro-choice people will fight to keep it available.

And yet they have. Few seriously desire to give children up for adoption at an advanced age unless the situation is serious enough that the children would probably be better off with different parents anyway. The only time adoption is a logical necessity is soon after birth, and thankfully society at large agrees completely with myself and other pro-choice people that children soon after birth can be given up for any reason and no reason at all. As the child ages it is less and less likely that the woman will seek adoption.

Not quite. They have to pay a portion of their check. If they do not work, they pay no money. There is not a set amount, as far as I know. Needless to say your comparison between physically working and providing bodily support for another is severely flawed.

Yes, if the parents made the decision to keep the child they are responsible for its well-being. This is not a contradiction.

There are some, even here in this forum, who believe a woman should give up her life to allow the fetus to live. It is close enough to "all or none" in my estimation that I would rather have all than the alternative.

reply from: yoda

Morality by public opinion poll, eh Sigma? When you boil it all down, you're all about killing babies, aren't you?

reply from: Tam

A "person" is not a scientific entity, it is a philosophical one. "Human" is a scientific concept.

reply from: Sigma

A dictionary definition does not a scientific concept make.

reply from: yoda

Some people have to be spoonfed. Here, Sig, take your medicine like a man.. or a woman... or whatever:

sci·en·tif·ic adjective Definitions: 2. methodical: proceeding in a systematic and methodical way
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861702312

reply from: Sigma

lol. Dictionary definitions are a poor man's argument and a very weak debating tool. It isn't even worth correcting your misconception.

reply from: yoda

HAHAHAHAHAAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! "POOR MAN'S ARGUMENT"?????? That's the funniest thing I've seen today, THANKS!!

TELL US, Mr. "Rich man's argument"....... how is your powerful intellect able to overcome all the years of education and professional experience of dictionary editors all over the nation? Were you just born such an unparalleled genius that you can out think them all?

YOU'RE A RIOT, FLEA-BOY!!!

reply from: Tam

ROFL!!! Funny how the ONLY people who criticize reference works such as dictionaries are those trying to promote an agenda that doesn't mix well with the accepted facts. And then they follow up with a dodge disguised as a dismissal. This is the formula used by ignorant fanatics--way to follow the recipe.

reply from: Sigma

I don't have to, they aren't contradicting my point

No more easy answers, use your brain for once.

I'm not criticizing reference works, they are useful in certain situations. They simply are not strong debate tools. They are what the weak hide behind when they have no logical argument in debates.

Dictionaries are useful only when there is an question of dictionary definition. There is no such issue here.

reply from: Tam

I'm not criticizing reference works, they are useful in certain situations. They simply are not strong debate tools. They are what the weak hide behind when they have no logical argument in debates.

Dictionaries are useful only when there is an question of dictionary definition. There is no such issue here.

Dictionaries list valid meanings of words. When someone tries to claim that a valid meaning of a word is invalid, the dictionary settles that argument. That is the purpose of dictionaries in debate. For you to claim that a dictionary is "what the weak hide behind when they have no logical argument" is, frankly, nonsense. In what manner are you suggesting that this is even possible? How does one "hide behind" a dictionary? If you're really small and the dictionary is really big...?

Why don't you give an example of someone "hiding behind a dictionary" because s/he has no logical argument?

reply from: bradensmommy

I read in Readers Digest that gullible wasn't in the dictionary....

Sorry, had to put my sarcastic 2 cents in because the dictionary is just full of BS according to some people.

reply from: Sigma

Sorry, I don't intend to get into a quoting war with you. In fact, I don't intend to have any sort of discussion with you.

reply from: Tam

Sorry, I don't intend to get into a quoting war with you. In fact, I don't intend to have any sort of discussion with you.

LOL I didn't think you could actually back up such an asinine assertion, and your particular method of dodging comes as no surprise.

reply from: Sigma

Tam, you don't have the intellectual honesty and integrity necessary to accept evidence even should I post it. I don't have the inclination to plow through your insults to have a discussion with you, so I bid you good day.

reply from: yoda

OH NO, Tam! It's another PUT DOWN from Siggy the Flea!! How will you ever recover from being cut by his rapier sharp wit?

reply from: Tam

Tam, you don't have the intellectual honesty and integrity necessary to accept evidence even should I post it. I don't have the inclination to plow through your insults to have a discussion with you, so I bid you good day.

But Fez....

"I said good day!!"

Awww......

Or, more to the point, this is another of the same dodge techniques you and your peers love to use. Claim that you don't want to/have to respond to a poster because you have some issue with the poster, rather than admit that you don't have any evidence. You're offended that I called your assertion asinine? It WAS an asinine assertion and it is for THAT reason, and no other, that you refuse to back it up. You can pretend that you have some legitimate gripe against me, but frankly, you and I both know--and so does everyone else--that you can't back up that assertion precisely because it was crap, and that you aren't big enough to admit it.

reply from: yoda

And this from the "genius" who said that a dictionary definition wasn't "scientific proof". Apparently you don't even know what your point is.......

In other words, make it up as you go, rather than actually seek out the truth from reputable sources? Yes, that would be the probabykilling method, all right.

WOAH! Now you are concerned that we aren't using strong enough "tools" to debate YOU????? Or are you setting yourself up as the sole judge of who is winning this debate??

Either way, thanks for the laugh.

reply from: GabrielsDad

http://content.impactengine.com/ieViewer.php?tid=61891

This is the story of my son and I....Gabriel has Down syndrome.

I think it has the power to change a lot of people's minds...and if it gets to people "before" they find that they are pregnant with a baby with Down syndrome, they'll be less likely to abort.

Please feel free to share it with your database of contacts…or feel free to post the link with a graphic or photo from the site on your site.

Thanks!

Sam
Gabriel's Dad

reply from: fyerstar

Is abortion only legal because a profit benefits from the babies death, as to murder there is no profit being made. In fact its more like they lose money by having to catch the killer, then keeping them in prison?

Is abortion legal because no one knew the baby on a personal level, there for no one has to impact on that life that was killed? and to many the fetus is, nothing but a "blob-of-tissue."

And murder is in fact illegal because someone knew this life, and that this life was seen as a human?

It all depends on how someone views these lives, right? Control over everything.

reply from: yoda

Welcome, fyerstar. Yes, I think there's a lot of truth in what you are implying. If wombs had a window in them, abortion would stop tomorrow.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics