Home - List All Discussions

Personhood

by: AshMarie88

I hear different things from pro-choicers on when they think personhood begins... Many say when it's born, many say when it becomes viable, others say when the mom feels it becomes one.
Question is, when will they stop and make up their minds? It seems that they keep changing them, while also ignoring science.

reply from: 1003

what science are they ignoring?

reply from: AshMarie88

The science that personhood begins in the womb, not right when a baby comes out.

reply from: 1003

can you evidence this, please? a journal would be helpful, but any major news source will do.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

per·son Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human.
Biology determines that an unborn child is a living human. Hence, a person. Even the simplist of morons can understand this.

reply from: AshMarie88

But Tab, it's not a living human yet! It's not human because it hasn't been born!
It's more like a cat or a zebra... Anything but a human!
(Oh pro-choicers and their logic...)

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Oh yes, it looks like a human, behaves like a human, has the processes any other human has....it must be a dog!

reply from: yoda

Very good! If only we could buy them for what they're worth, and sell them for what they think they're worth!

reply from: faithman

This is the semantical doesy doe That roe has played. They did not deny humanity, nor that th3e little human has life. They questioned at what point in development does the little human life become a person. The court claimed that it was ambiguous at that point in human knowlage. They were intelectually dishonest, as anything that seems to be unsure, you go back to the beginning of the document to get a feel of the spirit and intent. Count 40 words down of the opening paragraph of the constitution, [40 is the number of generations in scripture] you find the word posterity. Posterity means future generations. Even if you want to call a womb child potential life, they are protected by the constitution as a future generation. All congress has to do is establish person hood for womb children, and it is over in all 50 states.

reply from: yoda

The 73 SCOTUS focused on the word "person" only because it is the word that was used in the constitution. Had the founding fathers used another word, like "human", or "resident", or any other synonym, they would have siezed upon that word instead, and declared that it "excluded" unborn humans. That's the key to all probabykilling thinking, make every effort to exclude unborn humans from all words that offer them any kind of sympathy or protection, no matter how idiotic you sound when doing so.
Of course everyone realizes that the founding fathers had no such intentions when they wrote the constitution, none of them were known to be probabykilling advocates, in fact there probably were none in this country at that time (except for some very embarassed fathers/mothers of out of wedlock children, perhaps). So the 73 SCOTUS really had no good fig leaves to hide behind when they made up their fairy tale. They counted on the desire of a large part of the public, and a large number of public figures to be allowed to kill unborn babies, to save them from being laughed out of town. And the were right, like the emperor who had no clothes, most of the public failed to call them to account. Indeed, the naked SCOTUS has had no clothes for 33 years now, and only recently has anyone been brave enough to remark about how ugly they all look without clothes.
"And the blind shall lead the blind, and they shall all fall into the ditch".

reply from: Tam

Whoa. Good point. I hadn't thought of that, but you're probably right. Ugh. Sickening!

reply from: faithman

Duncan Hunter. HR 552. life at conception. Personhood. The end

reply from: theamericancatholic

Human life begins at conception.
Personhood exists by virtue of being a human being.
Personhood is not a level of physical development.
Personhood is not an age of reason.
Personhood is not a level of intelligence.
Personhood is not degree of emotional maturity.
Personhood is not a meaure of a persons wantedness to others.
Personhood is not a measure of a human beings worth to individuals.
Personhood is not a measure of a human beings worth to society.
Personhood is not a guarentee of certain happiness in life.
Personhood is a right to exist as a human being. A human being is entitled to that right of personhood from the time of their conception until that person reaches the point of their own death either by illness, natural causes or of other unforseen causes or actions that end their life. No human person may decide that another is not a person. In addition, no human being has the right to end the life of another human person by concsious design or action. Period.
Abortion by any other name or any justification is killing and a moral wrong and constitutes murder whether sanctioned by the state or not.
Can anyone look at another human being and decide that other human being is not a person? No.

reply from: NewPoster1

While I can't speak for others, my position has always been that "personhood" begins when one is capable of existing autonomously, without be physically inside of and physically attached to another person.

reply from: faithman

Duncan Hunter. HR 552. life at conception. Personhood. The end

reply from: yoda

Well of course that's your position. How else could you justify smashing the life out of an innocent baby?
Do you find the word "personhood" to be a nice veil behind which you can hide while you do your dirty work? Isn't that a rather small fig leaf for such a large ourtrage?
With your talent for rationalization, you could take a crossword puzzle and find justification for killing just about anyone, couldn't you?

reply from: AshMarie88

Just a question... why do you keep repeating this in every thread?

reply from: AshMarie88

So what about conjoined twins? Are they people? They're physically joined/attached to each other, so I guess to you, they're not people.

reply from: faithman

Just a question... why do you keep repeating this in every thread?
May haps folk can stay focused long enough to end it. 30 years of bunny trails is long enough. Person hood for pre-born womb children!!

reply from: Paladin165

http://www.pregnancy-calendars.net/images/zygote.JPG
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24726640@N00/147263787/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24726640@N00/147263788/
yes looks just like a human...don't you want to kiss it!!! oh wait, its about 0.006 inches wide...
same processes as any human...or mammal
in fact the only process that seperates it from non-mammals is the fact that it is physiologically part of the mother, which makes it hers.
up to four weeks, you couldn't tell the difference between your next child and your next steak.

reply from: Paladin165

yeah welcome to the world of non-absolute opinions.
I say we can abort babies until they reach the intelligence level of the average pro-lifer.

reply from: Paladin165

If its so easy to understand, why don't you leave biology to the "moron" biologists and philosophy to the moron philosophers?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Lol. So now age, beauty, and size gets someone Constitutional rights. Nice.

reply from: Paladin165

Lol. So now age, beauty, and size gets someone Constitutional rights. Nice.
actually its called a NERVOUS SYSTEM!

reply from: AshMarie88

Lol. So now age, beauty, and size gets someone Constitutional rights. Nice.
actually its called a NERVOUS SYSTEM!
And they have one. Actually they can feel completely thru-out their body by 17 weeks!
Which you would know that if you have ever read a real biology book or watched medicial tv and studied medical topics.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So if someone is born without a nervous system, do they get the right to life?

reply from: faithman

8 weeks, a beating heart and brain waves. You can't pull the plug on a born person with brain waves and a heart beat, and yet womb children can be chopped to bits, even though they have the same signs of life.

reply from: Paladin165

Personhood began a long time ago when the first organism developed self-reflective consciousness.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So if someone is born without a nervous system, do they get the right to life?

reply from: Paladin165

And I was talking about 4 week old Zygotes! Which you would know if you had bothered to click on my references! or even read my post!

reply from: Paladin165

So if someone is born without a nervous system, do they get the right to life?
lol and she's telling me to read my biology textbooks...

reply from: bradensmommy

So a 4 week old zygote is not as good as a newborn? Correct me if I'm wrong but you were a "zygote" as well. A concieved egg is just as human as a born baby and you can argue about that til you are blue in the face. Your assumptions and "facts" are BS to me and to anyone on this board with a brain and concience.

reply from: Paladin165

From wikipedia: In English common law and early American common law abortion was legal if performed before "quickening."

reply from: faithman

From wikipedia: In English common law and early American common law abortion was legal if performed before "quickening."
Be careful there ol boy. You don't seem to be very quick.

reply from: Paladin165

Dead bodies aren't persons, sorry. Neither are eggs and sperm.
"Human life" doesn't begin at fertilization, it just continues. "Human life" began millions of years ago.

reply from: Paladin165

Well of course that's your position. How else could you justify smashing the life out of an innocent baby?
Do you find the word "personhood" to be a nice veil behind which you can hide while you do your dirty work? Isn't that a rather small fig leaf for such a large ourtrage?
With your talent for rationalization, you could take a crossword puzzle and find justification for killing just about anyone, couldn't you?
Yoda, did it ever occur to you that what feels wrong to you might not feel wrong to other people?

reply from: Paladin165

So what about conjoined twins? Are they people? They're physically joined/attached to each other, so I guess to you, they're not people.
Ah nice reply. I would put it differently from NewPoster. The unborn DOES have a right to life, its just that that right does not outweight a person's right to their own body. Personhood is granted by self-reflective consciousness.
As for the twins, well the healthier one has to take priority. If you've got two perfectly equal conjoined twins, and you have to choose which one survives, well theres no right answer to that question.

reply from: yoda

Why of course it did!
For example, I think that pedophilia, child abuse and torture are wrong, and yet some people disagree with me! Maybe you disagree with me?
So, what WAS your point, by the way?

reply from: yoda

And we have YOUR WORD on that, right? Oh BOY!
We can take that and a couple dollars, and get a cup of coffee just about anywhere, right?
GROW UP!! We're not impressed by your BS!

reply from: yoda

You never heard of "dead people"?
I hate to say this, but you really are an idiot.

reply from: yoda

If its so easy to understand, why don't you leave biology to the "moron" biologists and philosophy to the moron philosophers?
She was afraid that you were too busy.

reply from: faithman

You never heard of "dead people"?
I hate to say this, but you really are an idiot.
How about a little child with heart beat, and brain waves? That is the standard of the medical profession as far as plug pulling. So we pull the ambilical cord because we number them with the already dead? So the womb is a tomb? I guess with 50 million or so, you have evidence to your sick fact.

reply from: yoda

Standards for declaring when someone is offically dead do not relate to the term "person" in any way that I'm aware of.
But yes, the womb is now a tomb for millions of unborn babies. Or, a "killing zone" perhaps more accurately.

reply from: Paladin165

And we have YOUR WORD on that, right? Oh BOY!
We can take that and a couple dollars, and get a cup of coffee just about anywhere, right?
GROW UP!! We're not impressed by your BS!
lol, what the hell...
are all 5700+ of your posts incoherent ad hominem rants?

reply from: yoda

No, only the ones addressed to the irritating BS spewed out by probabykilling advocates with nothing to say.

reply from: faithman

OK, so an unborn has a right to life, as any individual, but they aren't really individuals, and the property of someone else. So the existance of one human is property of another. Wish we could ask Dred Scott how he would have felt about that position. Oh wait, didn't we fight a war, and pass amendments to undo a bad court discission?

reply from: Sigma

The brain activity at that stage means little besides that the brain is alive. It does not suggest thought or consciousness. There is no unique consciousness and no, to my mind, unique individual when the vast majority of abortions are performed.

reply from: yoda

Who cares what you think, Siggy? Crawl back into your spider hole and wait for your next victim.

reply from: NewPoster1

A "born person" isn't physically inside of and physically attached to another person, against that person's will.

reply from: NewPoster1

So what about conjoined twins? Are they people? They're physically joined/attached to each other, so I guess to you, they're not people.
They aren't physically inside of and physically attached to each other, the most accurate description is that their physically fused together. In any case, theirs is a symbiotic relationship, while the unwilling woman and fetus exist in a host-parasite relationship.

reply from: yoda

So what, babykiller?
Did mother nature give women a license to kill when she decreed how procreation would be carried out?
Got any logical reason to connect "the right to kill" to "a physical attachment"?
Or do you just like to talk about why you think killing babies is fine and dandy?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, carrying a child for 9 months is such a harsh punishment to a woman who was just having some good fun sex a few weeks before! She shouldn't have to be unselfish and give a child a life! So yea, abortion is an awesome fix and no one will have to know! Then she can go back a few weeks after the abortion and get more great sex! Awesome!
(Ahem, choicers, if you didn't know, 9 months of pregnancy is NOT as hard as other temporary "jobs" (for lack of a better word) out there! It's a temporary process and hey, a child will get a chance to live! Imagine that! So why are you against giving an innocent child a life?)

reply from: faithman

The inocent child already has a life. What these #$!@%^&* advocate is the taking of that life.

reply from: yoda

Siggy seems to enjoy lying through his rotten teeth, and waiting to see how long it will take us to unravel/disprove his lies.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Please answer my question. You told me someone requires a nervous system to have Constitutional rights. So if someone was born without a nervous system, would anyone have the right to kill them?
Some day you're going to rank up with the people who thought African Americans were unhuman.

reply from: AshMarie88

Please answer my question. You told me someone requires a nervous system to have Constitutional rights. So if someone was born without a nervous system, would anyone have the right to kill them?
Makes no sense.
Fact: Every 1 in a little over 1,000,000 babies born will be born without a nervous system, or won't be able to feel anything. 1 in a million.

reply from: tjlsmom

The "against her will" mentality derives from the contraceptive mentality: Namely, the total separation of sex from procreation, UNLESS both partners are consciously TRYING or WANTING to achieve pregnancy. (In that case, the couple has an absolute RIGHT to conceive a child, and no means to that end is off limits- certainly not IVF, where multiple babies are conceived in a test tube, and all but one or two are thrown away.) So it all comes down to what each individual WANTS, and that is absolutely paramount in this mentality.
In short: Everyone has the inborn, unalienable "right" to enjoy sex at whatever age, whenever, in whatever manner, and with whomever they choose at any time, period; and with absolutely no consequenses or responsibilities attached to it, ever (except in those narrow circumstancs in which the mother actually WANTS to have a child). That "right" achieves "sacred" status among pro-choicers. Therein lies the "reasoning" behind their saying that an unborn baby can be in the womb "against the mother's will".

reply from: Sigma

In terms of mental existance, it cannot be distinguished from other growing body parts.
I am applying what I believe are the necessary requirements for individual worth. You are trying to confuse the issue with "an unconscious individual"; we have already cleared up that matter.

reply from: Sigma

A poor analogy. Running red lights is illegal in and of itself. Sex is not illegal.
If you ran a green light and hit another car, you would not be at fault.

reply from: Tam

And this from someone (Sigma, for those who aren't aware) who thinks that if I fall asleep in a park where roving bands of violin aficionados are known to hang out, and they kidnap me, restrain and sedate me, surgically alter me into a living dialysis machine for a famous violinist with kidney disease, and expect me to stay attached to him for the rest of his life, that is a good analogy for pregnancy.
LOL!!

reply from: yoda

In terms of mental existance, it cannot be distinguished from other growing body parts.
What a sleezy, slimy lie! But then we've come to expect that from you, Siggy.
We can't distinguish a baby from a "body part"? Wow, I do hope you're not a surgeon, Siggy!

reply from: yoda

Siggy is with of a band of roving violonists who want to be attached to other people in their sleep. His job is to hold their violins while the surgeon operates, and to clean up after the operation. He especially likes the clean up part. He gets to keep all the bloody stuff.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Not to mention with the violinist, he's already dying, if you detach him, he'll just continue to die. You aren't the cause of his death -- the disease is. With babies, the baby is living and growing. If you detach him, you're the sole cause of his death.

reply from: faithman

Siggy is with of a band of roving violonists who want to be attached to other people in their sleep. His job is to hold their violins while the surgeon operates, and to clean up after the operation. He especially likes the clean up part. He gets to keep all the bloody stuff.
May haps he has an abortionist suplying fetal meat for his bar-b-que.

reply from: yoda

Sounds about right for Siggy, yeah.

reply from: faithman

May be he has that new proabort chinees cook book? A thousand ways to wak a blob of tissue.

reply from: yoda

There's a probabkilling forum on Delphi called "Prochoice views" where they post things like recipes for "Fetal Piza", and "Zygote cookies". They think it's a hoot to talk about eating unborn humans.

reply from: Sigma

All else being equal, you are not at fault. If you did something illegal and hit a car that is vastly different than if you performed no illegal (or negligent) action and hit a car. It is a poor analogy.
Not really, no. I am not automatically liable for your injuries simply because I injured you. I would have to be blameworthy.
In the case of pregnancy, it would be hard to deny that the fetus is a detriment to the woman's general health.
Then you agree the fetus has no mental existence during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed?
lol. So, why is mental existence an unreasonable criteria in defining what I consider an individual to be?
The facts do indeed suit my "agenda". You may define individuals in terms of DNA, and I may define individuals in terms of mental existence. Since the fetus does not possess that quality, I would not consider it an 'individual'.

reply from: Sigma

You don't believe that the fact that the violinist currently attached will survive, and will certainly die if disconnected morally obligates you in any way?

reply from: Sigma

And can you point out why it isn't?

reply from: Sigma

Not so. Were you to have the right of way and the other ran a red light, you would not be at fault at all. You would not be liable for any harm. This depends somewhat on the State, but this is generally true. To be at fault, you would have to owe a legal duty of care in that circumstance, breech that duty of care, cause the accident and harm the other person as a result. Following the law does not constitute a breech of legal duty.
A euphemism? From a legal perspective, culpability describes the degree of one's blameworthiness in the commission of a crime or offense.
This is immaterial. There is a detriment to her health, however trivial you wish to make it out to be. If you cause me injury, you are responsible even if you didn't intend to injure me, yes?
It is relevant in philosophical discussions. It is a reasonable criteria.
Ok, lets agree on facts shall we? During the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are performed the fetus has no consciousness, no thought and no sense of self, yes?
Come now, concernedparent. Try to debate honestly. The facts do indeed support the contention that the fetus does not have the mental machinery to support consciousness during the time-frame the majority of abortions are performed. I personally do not consider the fetus to be an individual for this reason.

reply from: Sigma

Then lets examine this response, shall we?
This raises the obvious question: Were we to only remove the support of the woman but not directly kill the fetus would this be morally allowable?
The objection assumes that because the connection is natural it is morally incorrect to sever it. This is not a defensible position.
Come now, seriously? The woman in the Violinist does not suffer.
This is obviously a contradiction. First it says "Even if the child were an intruder, this still would not justify abortion" and 'supports' this with "First, the child is not an intruder".
This has the same problem as the first point: it would allow abortion by removing support without directly killing the fetus.
This does not address the question of the scenario. The question is what kind of obligation does the woman have. The objections raised here are pretty pathetic.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, she was negligent which makes her liable. Were she to follow the law, check her mirrors, etc, she would not be liable. Sorry.
Yes, it is a legal concept. Learn something of the issue. Personal responsibility is the domain of the individual, not the legal code. We are determining legal fault. Culpability is the measure of the degree to which one can be held legally liable, which describes ones blameworthiness.
Yet the fetus does injure the woman whether the fetus does this intentionally or not. The fetus is responsible for the injury, according to this logic.
Abortion affects more than just legal issues. No, you cannot prove a philosophical belief, but you can discuss them. Which is what I was doing when you jumped on it.
This is not always true. You would have to qualify this for it to be accepted as fact.
Again, you would have to qualify this for it to be acceptable as fact. In what way are you using "individual"?
Ah, in your opinion? This opinion is not supported by scientific facts while mine is.

reply from: yoda

What's your problem, Siggy? Are you frantic over the "injuries" pregnant women suffer from every pregnancy? Are you paniced over the imperfections of the natural human reproductive process?
Or are you just desperately looking for a way to justify your blood lust, and willing to settle on any tiny little detail of normal human physiology?
I'd say the latter is the most likely.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Wow, what a suprprise that you degrade a baby to a parasite! Oh wait, no it isn't...
A fetus isn't a parasite because in a host-parasite relationship, they're two different species. As far as I know, an unborn baby is human.
And an unborn child is SUPPOSED to be there, whereas a parasite is not.

reply from: faithman

Wow, what a suprprise that you degrade a baby to a parasite! Oh wait, no it isn't...
A fetus isn't a parasite because in a host-parasite relationship, they're two different species. As far as I know, an unborn baby is human.
And an unborn child is SUPPOSED to be there, whereas a parasite is not.
well I don't know? can you say brother-in-law?

reply from: Sigma

I am not ignoring this, it is part of my point. It is morally allowable, then, to disconnect another if they will die without this connection? Regardless of whether there is a pre-existing condition it is true that they will die without this connection. Do you have no moral or legal obligation now that you are supporting his life?
Then the issue has nothing to do with sustaining a human life in general, but instead is dependent upon the relationship? This does not seem to be the general belief pro-life people hold.
Then let me rephrase this. The woman suffers no ill effects as a result of the connection. The objection here is irrelevant; the moral point is whether a woman has a right to disconnect another using her body whether or not she suffers ill effects.
Don't be obtuse. The objection says "Even if the fetus were an intruder, this still would not justify abortion" but gives no support for this position besides to deny what it assumes in the first place. This objection is pointless.
Then disconnecting the fetus doesn't cause it's death; exposure does. Taking away a cripple's walking stick didn't cause him to fall; gravity does. Were you in this situation what you say here may be a moral balm, but it does ignore that disconnecting him will cause him to die.
It illustrates little besides a misunderstanding of the argument.
I'm sorry that you do not understand the concept. For any fault to lie with her, she must be blameworthy in some way. She would have to be negligent in some way to be liability for the harm she caused. People are not held liable for harms that they caused in fact, but that were not foreseeable, were too remote, or were the result of more immediate intervening causes. That is the standard for tort law.
Then we can dispense with discussing the legality?
Personal responsibility is personal. Whether one abdicates personal responsibility is also personal.
When you contribute idiocy like equating blameworthy with a euphemism I am frustrated with your lack of knowledge. I have to teach you about the subject before we can discuss it.
Your competence is indeed in question, but I refuted your argument just fine.
There is "injury" in every pregnancy in that it is a detriment to her health. You are avoiding my point, the fetus does injure the woman whether the fetus does this intentionally or not. The fetus is responsible for the injury, apparently.
Whatever. It was a philosophical discussion, which is what my point was geared towards. Your criticism of this point in a legal context is meaningless.
My point stands.
I see. So you would use individual in that it has unique DNA?
Oh, please. I was referring to your opinion that the fetus has the mental machinery necessary for consciousness from conception. Your opinion is not supported by scientific evidence while mine is.
Then what of those who have the same DNA? Two individuals or one?

reply from: AshMarie88

"There is "injury" in every pregnancy in that it is a detriment to her health. You are avoiding my point, the fetus does injure the woman whether the fetus does this intentionally or not. The fetus is responsible for the injury, apparently."
Aww, like what, morning sickness?! Back pains? A little kick in the stomach?

reply from: Sigma

And other less obvious changes. Mild anemia, heart murmurs and irregularities, decreased blood pressure, edema, fatigue, respiratory irregularities, narrowed airways, heartburn, constipation, hemorrhoids, pica, melasma, interference in blood flow, pressure on the bladder, increased stress upon the heart and kidneys (among other systems), and a fluctuation of nearly all hormone levels. And, of course, nausea and back pain.

reply from: jelaine

I find no justifiable reason to find a developing baby *not a person*. An ultrasound definitely shows everyone a baby! The 3D ultrasounds they have now often show such remarkable images of the baby that frequently you can tell which parent the baby resembles most. How can anyone not call this baby a person ( at approx. 4-5 months gestation).
But personally I know life begins at conception... they have all the DNA that will make them a unique individual.
I really don't get it! How can anyone justify killing the most innocent of humans.
Years ago, I thought Roe v Wade was a good thing. I am a woman and I had faith in all women. I thought abortion would only be used in extreme situations to save a mother's life. I saw no reason for women to be denied a medical procedure that was necessary. I had no idea women would or could use abortion as a form of birth control....or that any woman would choose to have an abortion just because she didn't want a child right now. (Convenience and selfishness!)
Today there is nothing more clear than there is a segment of our society, our offspring.....the preborn babies, that are desperately in need of laws to protect them. I hope we soon see the laws that will protect their "right to life" that they obviously need and deserve!
Sorry for being long winded.
Here is a LINK for the facts that backup my opinion.... http://e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm

reply from: Sigma

You answered that in your post
Regardless of how horrible you see it as, it remains a woman's right to control what happens to her body in this way.

reply from: AshMarie88

And other less obvious changes. Mild anemia, heart murmurs and irregularities, decreased blood pressure, edema, fatigue, respiratory irregularities, narrowed airways, heartburn, constipation, hemorrhoids, pica, melasma, interference in blood flow, pressure on the bladder, increased stress upon the heart and kidneys (among other systems), and a fluctuation of nearly all hormone levels. And, of course, nausea and back pain.
Well you obviously think pregnancy is the worst thing in the world!
And that 9 months of "injuries" (more like natural occurrences) isn't worth giving another human being its own life it should have?
I guess most humanity really is that selfish. It's all about me me me to most women.

reply from: Sigma

No. It is not the easiest thing in the world, however. It takes strength, self-sacrifice and commitment. Not all women have that strength or are willing to sacrifice or make that commitment. I believe it is immoral to require it of them.
Shouldn't this be answered by individual women? Some women would eagerly say "Yes it is worth it!" (you may be one), and other women may say "No, it is not worth it". I believe each women should make this determination.

reply from: AshMarie88

No. It is not the easiest thing in the world, however. It takes strength, self-sacrifice and commitment. Not all women have that strength or are willing to sacrifice or make that commitment. I believe it is immoral to require it of them.
Shouldn't this be answered by individual women? Some women would eagerly say "Yes it is worth it!" (you may be one), and other women may say "No, it is not worth it". I believe each women should make this determination.
It's funny how you believe in a right for a mom to abort her unborn child, but are against a mom killing her born child.
I don't understand why the unborn are far less important than the born. The most innocent, sinless, defenseless humans...

reply from: jelaine

Steps are being taken to correct that as we speak.

reply from: AshMarie88

Steps are being taken to correct that as we speak.
Slowly but surely.

reply from: Sigma

Not funny. Consistent.
I don't understand why women should not be allowed bodily autonomy. I don't understand why you believe it good and right to believe that women do not deserve any determination over what happens to her body in pregnancy.
I can understand why you wish to protect the fetus. I truly can. Why can you not understand why women justly wish some measure of protection from governmental control over what happens to her uterus?

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm tired of hearing about the woman. You focus on the woman, all the time. Why not focus on the child or man for once?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yeah, stabbing someone doesn't cause their death, the subsequent blood loss does. That air tight excuse should hold up in a court of law.
"Your honor, yes I did push this man off the building, but my push didn't kill him. Gravity did."

reply from: faithman

Or that sudden stop maybe? Thats it, the ground did it!!

reply from: AshMarie88

Or that sudden stop maybe? Thats it, the ground did it!!
Ah yes! The ground killed him!

reply from: yoda

Oh, but they DO have that, Siggy!
But if you don't like the fact that gestation takes 9 months or so, why not go to the source of the problem: "Mother Nature" or "God"? Why not take your whining and complaining to the "manufacturer"?
Just can't "drop the knife", can you Siggy? As long as there are babies being gestated, you'll insist on YOUR RIGHT to kill them, won't you? What did they ever do to you, Siggy? What's so awful about babies that you yearn to see them killed in the thousands, Siggy?

reply from: yoda

Now there's an idea! Forget about Siggy's obsession with removing things that are "attached", concentrate on whether what you're advocating will kill someone!
I wonder why Siggy never thought of that?? Or, perhaps he did......

reply from: yoda

I've always heard it said that the long fall doesn't hurt you, it's that sudden stop at the end!
Goodness, the babykillers just don't want to be blamed for killing the babies, do they?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Umm, actually, she does. She can choose not to get pregnant, you know. It's not like it's the kid's fault she had sex, it is completely and totally her fault, if it's not rape or incest.

reply from: faithman

Or that sudden stop maybe? Thats it, the ground did it!!
Ah yes! The ground killed him!
Dirtus mortalus ? groundacide? sand assasin? clay clobbering? loam invasion?


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