Home - List All Discussions

An unborn child's rights...

...are both to existence and non-existence.

by: rsg007

People who are pro-life often proclaim that every unborn child has a right to life. This view is often presented alongside the argument that an unborn child has rights over its own body (and this argument comes usually in response to the pro-choice belief that women should have full bodily autonomy).
But if an unborn child truly has rights over its own body, it has the right to NOT live just as much as it has the right to live. Of course, an unborn child cannot make a decision such as this. So who should? Strangers who know nothing of its (potential) existence, who know nothing about its parents, potential home life, etc.? Or the mother who is carrying that child in her womb, who knows what kind of situation the child might be born into, who knows the risks to her own and her unborn child's health?
Would people who are pro-life purport to have any jurisdiction over the rights of a child after it is born? Would they attempt to make life-or-death decisions about its medical care, or try to tell it how to use proper table manners? No, this is up to the mother (and/or other guardians).
This is why the pro-life message that an unborn child always has the right to live is ridiculous. If we say an unborn child has rights, it must have both the right to live and the right not to live, and because it cannot make this choice, the mother, the one upon whose body the child is reliant, must make the choice. Not strangers who do not even know it is there.

reply from: rsg007

Sorry, I had to edit the above to clarify the second-to-last sentence and put it in bold.

reply from: Banned Member

The right of a human being not to live? I have never heard of such a right "not to live".
As a Catholic, and a sane person. I refure the idea of adult or elderly euthanasia. And as far as suicide is concerned, I think that to a human person, no rational person, in a right state of mind, wants to die or kill themselves. That is why we have suicide prevention and crisis hotlines, to help people to cope with life and desparation, not to encourage and reassure people of their right "not to live".
I think that given the chance, the person that is unborn would want to live and will want to live. I think that logically, the right to "not live" can be rated right up there with the right to murder. A person may do what they would wish to do, but that does not make their choice morally valid.
I don't care what the particular potential existance or even the worth of the human being is that is unborn, be they a fully healthy baby, someone with Downs, or someone with any number or combinations of medical problems. Some of our most valuble human persons are far from being physically perfect. If you are alluding to selective abortion based on the worth, or health of the unborn child, that sounds strangely like eugenics. That is usually the work of madmen, insane dictators, unethical scientists or abortion rights founders like Margeret Sanger.
As far as your argument is on the whole, it has a penny's weight of logic and I can only assume that you are trying it out in this forum for the sake of fits and giggles. Personally, I am not amused and find this to be one of the more disturbing and irrational pro-abortion arguments I have heard in a while.

reply from: lukesmom

Well, your way of thinking could be extended to the homeless, the disabled, the abused and everyone else who you think is not living the "perfect" existance you may invision. Do you advocate they be ripped apart limb by limb and put out of existance too?

reply from: rsg007

Really? Well, every person has that right. It seems odd to me that you don't realize that some people do not want to live and it is their right not to continue living. I understand you don't agree with euthanasia for the sick or elderly, but again, everyone should have a right to do what they wish with their own body, including killing it.
Yes, we do have suicide prevention because it's important to let those considering suicide know that there might be other options, e.g., counseling, medication, etc. Just like those considering abortion are counseled about all their options, e.g., adoption.
However, it is ultimately up to the individual to decide whether they continue to live or not. I realize this sounds morbid, and perhaps it is a little. But not everyone has the same life experiences, brain chemistry, desires, etc. It is just as valid for one person to love life and loathe the idea of dying as it is for another to loathe life and seek solace in death.
I'm sorry, but you just cannot say that you "think...given the chance, the person that is unborn would want to live" any more than you can tell me what color I am thinking of right now.
No, that is not the point of my argument. My argument is actually not about abortion per se, but about the rights of the unborn that pro-lifers frequently bring up. My point is that if you say an unborn child has rights over its own body, those rights MUST include the right not to be born. Rights over one's body cannot be granted selectively to anyone, and of course this includes pregnant women.
This is not a pro-abortion argument. It is an argument about the rights of the unborn that pro-lifers love to talk about.

reply from: rsg007

Well, your way of thinking could be extended to the homeless, the disabled, the abused and everyone else who you think is not living the "perfect" existance you may invision. Do you advocate they be ripped apart limb by limb and put out of existance too?
You are confused about my argument. I am not saying other people have the right to end the existence of a homeless or disabled person. But a homeless or disabled person has the right to end their own life. And an unborn child has the right not to live, too.

reply from: Banned Member

rsg007, you are an idiot and a fool. If you paid money for whatever education I fear you have wasted your money. I would prefer to think that you are simply ignorant. I pray that you have no power over the qualities of anyones life. God help you if you have children of your own.
While you are arguing the merits of suicide, I have been tending to a dear friend that has been battling with depression. Have you ever loved another human being? Try it some time, it might expand your view of the singular worth of the human person. A human being is irreplaceable, and has worth, even when they sometimes believe they do not.
I pray for all people that support abortion, that God may reach their hardened hearts.

reply from: rsg007

So that is your argument? To call me names and pray for me. Please do not pray--I do not believe in any god and it would only be a waste of time.
I battle depression myself, and I am thankful for all the help and support I have received from friends, family, and mental health professionals.
It is understandable, though egotistical, to wish you could completely control someone else's depression and suicidal feelings, but it is just not possible or admirable. It is their life--let them live it, or not.
But this is not actually an argument about the merits of suicide, as you put it. It is about the rights of the unborn child. Do you agree the unborn have the right to not live just as they have the right TO live (as you so frequently say)?

reply from: Smurfy

What a compelling, reasoned debate point!
/sarcasm

reply from: rsg007

Glad you chimed in Smurfy. What do you think of my original point?

reply from: Smurfy

I read it and gave it some thought.
It's really the same situation as someone on life support. The family are the ones who choose to end the person's life. There could be a spontaneous chance of recovery (of a 'miracle'), but it simply comes down to practicality.
I think anyone who is in a coma would want their family to pull the plug, rather than spend 10 years crippling themselves financially in order to keep them alive, waiting for things to get better.
If you were the child who is going to have a horrible upbringing of poverty and a family struggling constantly to even make ends meet, when your parents could live a life that isn't going to break them, wouldn't you choose abortion?
The child can't actually make the decision, even though it is being accorded all the rights of a born human being. The mother can though. As the legal custodian, she is responsible for all choices involving the baby.
Just like the person on life support, I'm sure if the baby were to grow up and know of the suffering the family went though - and reflect on how bad its life is - it would choose abortion. If you have a right to start your life, you have a right to finish your life.
Oddly enough, you don't have a right to life. Perhaps on a whim, your parents had used a condom...you would never have been born. You don't have a right to force your parents to copulate to produce you. It is THEIR right to have unprotected sex and produce life. They own the act. Not you.

reply from: Faramir

This reasoning does not make any sense.
There is nothing wrong with presuming a desire to live.

reply from: Teresa18

I get the feeling you sincerely feel this way, so I'm going to respond.
We proclaim what our Declaration of Independence and Constitution proclaim, that all persons are endowed with the unalienable right to life. The unborn are persons.
First of all, suicide is illegal in this country. People who attempt suicide are often taken to a hospital or mental hospital where they can be monitored because generally there is something wrong to make people want to end their own lives. People do commit suicide obviously because there is not always anyone there to stop them or anyone there who wants to stop them.
Whether or not sucide is legal is irrelevant. Suicide is one person choosing to end his/her own life. A person ending the life of another without his/her consent is murder. We could EASILY apply your logic to born children or disabled people unable to make that decision. We could have clinics where parents would bring their children if they decide their children don't have a right to live. We could have clinics where people could take disabled family members in their care if they decide they don't have a right to live. Y
Medical care is different than murder. Yes. The government has trumps parents if they decide to kill their children because it is illegal. Secondly, the government has also stepped in in situations where they believe the parents are providing poor medical care that will end the lives of their child. Here's an example. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. They believe they are immoral and shun members who have them. Wikipedia says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah
Now I think the government has stepped in too far in certain situations where they are forcing kids to learn their sex ed programs including homosexual behavior and giving out free birth control in schools. That should be up to the parents.

reply from: Smurfy

I thought wikipedia wasn't an 'acceptable' source on here?

reply from: Teresa18

I managed to find a court case on the issue, but it was so long, I figured I would just post that snippet from Wikipedia regarding blood transfusions. I did read a case where three of six surviving sextuplets born prematurely in Canada were taken by the government for blood transfusions after their parents refused based on their religion. Since we are talking about the United States, however, I didn't feel it would be acceptable to post that.

reply from: lukesmom

I am far from confused and I wonder about the amt of airspace in your brain. When I hear the unborn say, sign or even write their request to be murdered, then I will admit they have the right over their body and their life, until then please leave them their right to life.

reply from: nancyu

Obviously.
You poor poor dear battling depression. Why don't you try battling something outside of YOURSELF. Try caring for someone besides YOURSELF. Your depression would instantly disappear. Your friends, family and the mental health "professionals" who are supporting you are your "enablers" to use their term.
We are here to defend the lives of innocent and defenseless children, and their posterity. No we wouldn't support a mother's right to kill her children after they are born, either, and laws do protect them after they are born. Our argument is that they are entitled to protection before they are born also. The laws protecting a woman's right to choose above a child's right to live are abhorrent.
I've been looking everywhere for the argument that justifies these laws, and there isn't one. It does not exist. Abortion is wrong. It is murder, it is wrong.

reply from: yoda

Patently ridiculous. Not even adults have the "right not to live" in most states, since suicide is illegal in most of them. But even if by some madness one did confer that right on a baby, then who would interpret it's wishes "not to live"? Who would read the mind of the baby? The mother who wants to kill it? What an idiotic concept.......

reply from: yoda

Given that the majority of people who are alive right now are not actively trying to kill themselves, I'd say that the odds are pretty good that most unborn children would also not want to kill themselves before they ever see the light of day. That's a pretty safe bet, IMO.
But your bloodthirsty position is that you (or the mother) CAN read the baby's mind and discern that it WANTS TO DIE..... how insane can you be?

reply from: nancyu

What a compelling, reasoned debate point!
/sarcasm
What a compelling, reasoned debate point!
/sarcasm

reply from: faithman

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

reply from: tbloom

I came across this site while helping my son on a research project and simply had to reply. I just have a few questions! Let me know if I have this incorrect- those in the pro-life movement believe that a fetus has the right to have a chance at life. If a woman does not want the fetus, she has an abortion. Abortions destroy the fetus. So, if this line of thought is correct- would pro-lifers agree to a surgical procedure where the fetus is removed from the woman without being destroyed- it would then have a chance to live. This would preserve the rights of the woman and the fetus- just a thought! Thanks and have a great day!

reply from: rsg007

I am far from confused and I wonder about the amt of airspace in your brain. When I hear the unborn say, sign or even write their request to be murdered, then I will admit they have the right over their body and their life, until then please leave them their right to life.
No, you obviously are confused because you completely misrepresented my argument in your first post. And when I hear an unborn child say, sign or write their request to live then I will admit that that particular unborn child wants to live. Until then I will leave the decision up to the mother. Not you.

reply from: rsg007

Obviously.
You poor poor dear battling depression. Why don't you try battling something outside of YOURSELF. Try caring for someone besides YOURSELF. Your depression would instantly disappear. Your friends, family and the mental health "professionals" who are supporting you are your "enablers" to use their term.
We are here to defend the lives of innocent and defenseless children, and their posterity. No we wouldn't support a mother's right to kill her children after they are born, either, and laws do protect them after they are born. Our argument is that they are entitled to protection before they are born also. The laws protecting a woman's right to choose above a child's right to live are abhorrent.
I've been looking everywhere for the argument that justifies these laws, and there isn't one. It does not exist. Abortion is wrong. It is murder, it is wrong.
I care for and help others with similar problems to mine every day--it is part of my job. Unfortunately, that is not what cures depressoin, and unless you are a mental health professional I suggest you stop purporting to know what does. If you honestly think friends, family and mental health professionals are "enablers" to those with depression or other mental afflictions you are clearly very misguided.

reply from: rsg007

Patently ridiculous. Not even adults have the "right not to live" in most states, since suicide is illegal in most of them. But even if by some madness one did confer that right on a baby, then who would interpret it's wishes "not to live"? Who would read the mind of the baby? The mother who wants to kill it? What an idiotic concept.......
You are reading the mind of the baby when you assume it wants to live. I am not saying it does not necessarily have the right to live, but along with that must come the right to not live. And since it can't make the decision, who will? Not you!

reply from: rsg007

Given that the majority of people who are alive right now are not actively trying to kill themselves, I'd say that the odds are pretty good that most unborn children would also not want to kill themselves before they ever see the light of day. That's a pretty safe bet, IMO.
But your bloodthirsty position is that you (or the mother) CAN read the baby's mind and discern that it WANTS TO DIE..... how insane can you be?
Just because most people are not actively trying to kill themselves does not mean they want to live. There are many reasons people do not try to commit suicide even if they want to. I know this is a very technical point, but I am only trying to show you that YOU are reading the unborn child's mind and saying it wants to live.
This argument is not about finding a justification for abortion, only about showing pro-lifers that they are assigning selective rights to the unborn. Are you OK with that?

reply from: yoda

You go from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous. NO ONE other than the person whose life is in question has the moral right to make that decision.... so the decision SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY ANYONE ELSE...... !!
The child will be able to make it's own decisions if allowed to live, why are you so desperate to keep that from happening?
You haven't done any such thing. IF you want to give unborn humans the "right not to live", all you need do is allow the child to live long enough to make it's own decision, and act on it.
Anything else is the moral equivalent of murder. Are you okay with that?

reply from: lukesmom

But Yoda, that would take away all the fun for the proaborts. They would have to find someone else to kill.

reply from: tbloom

I apologize- I posted a question before I realized that the people on this site are ignorant and crazy! Just ignore the post above- I'm sure you would have anyway because you are unable to logically argue against it- thanks!

reply from: lukesmom

Yea, I know. Sometimes it seems "you can teach a proabort, but you can't teach him/her much". It does get frustrating and most of them act pretty crazy when posting here. I often wonder how they act in public, rubbing their hands and saying "Out, damn spot; out I say!" (Hint: this is from Macbeth)

reply from: yoda

Just call me the "old kill-joy".......

reply from: yoda

Unless the baby is viable, then there is no procedure that would accomplish that. If the baby is viable, then it is supposed to be illegal to abort it at that point.... but of course abortionists are "above the law" in that regard.

reply from: yoda

Too late now, you're one of us..... the men in the white coats are coming for you now......... run away!!

reply from: Banned Member

There is a fundamental flaw in this argument of the right not to live. I was tired last night and did not see it. As soon as you bestow any rights to an "unborn" human being you are conceding personhood, and any power you have over that child is null and void. Your so-called right to "not live" as you call is goes flapping furiously out the window. The existance of the right of a woman to choose to hinges on personhood, and once you give "rights" to, even the most basic rights to an unborn human person, the right to an abortion ceases to exist. Case closed.

reply from: rsg007

Yea, I know. Sometimes it seems "you can teach a proabort, but you can't teach him/her much". It does get frustrating and most of them act pretty crazy when posting here. I often wonder how they act in public, rubbing their hands and saying "Out, damn spot; out I say!" (Hint: this is from Macbeth)
This poster did not say whether he/she thought the pro-lifers or pro-choicers were "ignorant and crazy." So don't go assuming things.

reply from: rsg007

First of all, I am not bestowing either the right to live or the right not to live on unborn children--I am simply pointing out that if YOU bestow the right to live then you must also bestow the right not to live.
Secondly, a woman's right to choose hinges on her rights over her own body. It doesn't matter whether the unborn child is a person or not. If you do believe it is a person, then you must note the following: No born person is permitted to use another born person's body without consent. So why should an unborn person be allowed to? Pro-lifers advocate for SPECIAL rights for the unborn, not equal ones.

reply from: Banned Member

What you are doing is looking for a dack door for when abortion becomes illegal as it eventually will. Once the unborn child is a person you are going to look for some loop hole in the law to kill the child some other way, under some other pretense. Are you that desparate to commit genocide?

reply from: AshMarie88

Newborns can't choose to do what it wants with its own body, so it MUST have the right to live and the right not to live, right?
Your argument is bogus.

reply from: lukesmom

This thread topic is too stupid to waste my time with.

reply from: lukesmom

This thread topic is too stupid to waste my time with.

reply from: lukesmom

This thread topic is too stupid to waste my time with.

reply from: Smurfy

What a compelling, reasoned debate point!
/sarcasm
What a compelling, reasoned debate point!
/sarcasm
Imitation and flattery.

reply from: Beprolifewithme

OH my gosh! You're saying that just because the baby is reliant on it's mother, that it should be defensless and deserve to die?!?!? That is sooooooooooo unfair!! There is no choice to live or die, I am 100% sure that every baby would not want to be ripped and sucked apart into a tube b/c it was reliant on it's mother. Would you?

reply from: rsg007

Umm, that's not what I'm saying at all. But I'm too tired to explain it all again for those who are too ignorant or too biased to understand anyway. If anyone wants to have a real debate about this issue please respond with a coherent and civil post. Thanks.

reply from: rsg007

Do you honestly think pro-choicers WANT to "kill" unborn children or "commit genocide"? I mean, how misguided can you be? But I do want to protect women's bodily autonomy. And I doubt abortion will ever become illegal. If it does, I will move to a civilized country where it is still legal. Please don't respond with a comment about how you'll be glad to see me go--already anticipated it.

reply from: rsg007

Newborns are not reliant on their mother's body to survive.

reply from: rsg007

This thread topic is too stupid to waste my time with.
Then why were you so desperate to respond to it that you hit the "send" button multiple times and ended up with three posts? Do you perhaps not want to "bother" because you realize I have a point?

reply from: rsg007

Oh, and you can't be 100% sure about anything that anybody wants, except for yourself, and I bet sometimes you're not even sure about that. This is the problem with being pro-life--you are constantly positive you know what's best for other people and unborn children, even those you've never met and never will.

reply from: Banned Member

Do you honestly think pro-choicers WANT to "kill" unborn children or "commit genocide"? I mean, how misguided can you be? But I do want to protect women's bodily autonomy. And I doubt abortion will ever become illegal. If it does, I will move to a civilized country where it is still legal. Please don't respond with a comment about how you'll be glad to see me go--already anticipated it.
Yes, I think that abortion is genocide and those that advocate abortion and make money from it are equally guilty of genocide. Your ilk has already successfully exterminated more than 45 million human beings since 1973 in the United States alone. There is no such thing as a womans bodily autonomy. It is a myth like her supposed right to choose. The only choice that abortionists support is that of death of the unborn. If a woman wanted to concern herself with bodily autonomy, she would do well to not become pregnant. And, the rights of the unborn must be considered, first and foremost the right to be born above any womans rights. I think that we could see abortion all but illegal in the next ten years, its existance being only present in all but the most extreme cases rape or incest. That would effectively illiminate 99.5% of all abortions. You will be leaving a civilized country in favor of modern barbarity. Congradulations.

reply from: rsg007

There IS such a thing as a woman's bodily autonomy and a right to choose--the laws supporting elective abortion provide a woman with that very thing. You can wish women didn't have bodily autonomy or a right to choose but unless the law is changed it is just wishful thinking. Along the same lines, unborn children do not have rights--laws grant rights and there are no laws granting those rights to the unborn at this time. You saying that the unborn have rights does not make it so.
And for the millionth time, the "death of the unborn" is not "the only choice" we advocate for--I want every woman to decide for herself whether she wants or doesn't want her unborn child. If she does, fine. If she doesn't, fine.
And what if a woman uses three types of contraception during sex and still gets pregnant--do you think she WANTED to get pregnant? Should men never have sex unless they want to get a woman pregnant?

reply from: Smurfy

Easy for a man to say.
Let me guess, you think women should stay home and raise kids and let the man work?

reply from: Teresa18

We proclaim what our Declaration of Independence and Constitution proclaim, that all persons are endowed with the unalienable right to life. The unborn are persons.
First of all, suicide is illegal in this country, with the exception of Oregon. People who attempt suicide are often taken to a hospital or mental hospital where they can be monitored because generally there is something wrong to make people want to end their own lives. People do commit suicide obviously because there is not always anyone there to stop them or anyone there who wants to stop them.
Whether or not sucide is legal is irrelevant. Suicide is one person choosing to end his/her own life. A person ending the life of another without his/her consent is murder. We could EASILY apply your logic to born children or disabled people unable to make that decision. We could have clinics where parents would bring their children if they decide their children don't have a right to live. We could have clinics where people could take disabled family members in their care if they decide they don't have a right to live. Y
Medical care is different than murder. Yes. The government has trumps parents if they decide to kill their children because it is illegal. Secondly, the government has also stepped in in situations where they believe the parents are providing poor medical care that will end the lives of their child. Here's an example. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. They believe they are immoral and shun members who have them. Wikipedia says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...s_Witnesses_and_blood
Now I think the government has stepped in too far in certain situations where they are forcing kids to learn their sex ed programs including homosexual behavior and giving out free birth control in schools. That should be up to the parents.
Rsg007, you missed my posted to you. I did alter one thing. I forgot about Oregon's assisted suicide laws, but those are only in very select cases.

reply from: Smurfy

I thought wikipedia wasn't supposed to be an allowable information source on here?
The anti-choicers attacked me for using it, then they use it themselves!
How very ironic.

reply from: Banned Member

There is no 100% effective means of birth control except one; abstinance. If and when, and every time a man and women have sex, they are accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant. So yes, if a man is 100% sure he does not ever want to be a father he should not have sex. If a woman thinks that there is any possibility she does not want a child, she should not have sex.
Not having sex is excercising bodily autonomy. Becoming pregnant is a reasonable and expected outcome of having sex. You cannot un-make the choice to have sex, by killing another human being through an abortion. You give up bodily autonoy when you have sex, you give it up again when you have an abortion. Having the child that you create and caring for that child, is called responsibility.

reply from: yoda

Actually I think that removing the ovaries and uterus is pretty much 100% effective, but much more expensive and difficult to obtain than abstinence. You don't even need a prescription to practice abstinence.

reply from: yoda

You go from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous. NO ONE other than the person whose life is in question has the moral right to make that decision.... so the decision SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY ANYONE ELSE...... !!
The child will be able to make it's own decisions if allowed to live, why are you so desperate to keep that from happening?
You haven't done any such thing. IF you want to give unborn humans the "right not to live", all you need do is allow the child to live long enough to make it's own decision, and act on it.
Anything else is the moral equivalent of murder. Are you okay with that?

reply from: Banned Member

I wonder, what would rsg007 has done in the case of Terri Schiavo, whose life was ended because of a court decision that completely disregarded her two biological parents wish to keep her alive?
Since the unborn child has granted power of attorney to no one would it not be the states decison to decide whether or not to terminate life? Since there is no reason to believe that the unborn child could not live if continued developing in the mothers wombm wouldn't the state have to decide in favor of life?
Keep in mind, that if you are conceding rights to the unborn, you are conceding personhood. That which is not a person, does not have rights. Persons have rights, and among them is the right to not be killed while they are in state in which they are unable to make that decison themselves.
The child must live!

reply from: rsg007

There is no 100% effective means of birth control except one; abstinance. If and when, and every time a man and women have sex, they are accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant. So yes, if a man is 100% sure he does not ever want to be a father he should not have sex. If a woman thinks that there is any possibility she does not want a child, she should not have sex.
Not having sex is excercising bodily autonomy. Becoming pregnant is a reasonable and expected outcome of having sex. You cannot un-make the choice to have sex, by killing another human being through an abortion. You give up bodily autonoy when you have sex, you give it up again when you have an abortion. Having the child that you create and caring for that child, is called responsibility.
The IDEA of abstinence may be 100% effective but in reality it is much less than other forms of contraception--just because someone is taught abstinence does not mean they will stick to it.
Actually, having sex is exercising bodily autonomy. And having an abortion is definitely exercising bodily autonomy. Carrying a child to term against your will is definitely not doing so.

reply from: Banned Member

People who are pro-life often proclaim that every unborn child has a right to life. This view is often presented alongside the argument that an unborn child has rights over its own body (and this argument comes usually in response to the pro-choice belief that women should have full bodily autonomy).
But if an unborn child truly has rights over its own body, it has the right to NOT live just as much as it has the right to live. Of course, an unborn child cannot make a decision such as this. So who should? Strangers who know nothing of its (potential) existence, who know nothing about its parents, potential home life, etc.? Or the mother who is carrying that child in her womb, who knows what kind of situation the child might be born into, who knows the risks to her own and her unborn child's health?
Would people who are pro-life purport to have any jurisdiction over the rights of a child after it is born? Would they attempt to make life-or-death decisions about its medical care, or try to tell it how to use proper table manners? No, this is up to the mother (and/or other guardians).
This is why the pro-life message that an unborn child always has the right to live is ridiculous. If we say an unborn child has rights, it must have both the right to live and the right not to live, and because it cannot make this choice, the mother, the one upon whose body the child is reliant, must make the choice. Not strangers who do not even know it is there.
This didn't come from a Barack Obama speach did it? The logic seems vaguely familiar.

reply from: rsg007

We proclaim what our Declaration of Independence and Constitution proclaim, that all persons are endowed with the unalienable right to life. The unborn are persons.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Who says the unborn are persons? You? Certainly not the Constitution or any laws, which means that the unborn are not persons. But this is not really relevant to my point, because, for the sake of argument, I am going along with pro-lifers desire to assign rights to the unborn. My point is simply that there is a right to live but also a right not to live.
First of all, suicide is illegal in this country. People who attempt suicide are often taken to a hospital or mental hospital where they can be monitored because generally there is something wrong to make people want to end their own lives. People do commit suicide obviously because there is not always anyone there to stop them or anyone there who wants to stop them.
Whether or not sucide is legal is irrelevant. Suicide is one person choosing to end his/her own life. A person ending the life of another without his/her consent is murder. We could EASILY apply your logic to born children or disabled people unable to make that decision. We could have clinics where parents would bring their children if they decide their children don't have a right to live. We could have clinics where people could take disabled family members in their care if they decide they don't have a right to live. Y
None of these individuals would be using the body of another without consent. It's not relevant to the argument.
Medical care is different than murder. Yes. The government has trumps parents if they decide to kill their children because it is illegal. Secondly, the government has also stepped in in situations where they believe the parents are providing poor medical care that will end the lives of their child. Here's an example. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. They believe they are immoral and shun members who have them. Wikipedia says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...esses_and_blood
Now I think the government has stepped in too far in certain situations where they are forcing kids to learn their sex ed programs including homosexual behavior and giving out free birth control in schools. That should be up to the parents.
Abortion is not murder--the law says so and the law is what decides what is murder and what is not.

reply from: rsg007

Please assign this quote to me. Thanks.

reply from: rsg007

If Schiavo was unable to make the choice herself, the next-of-kin should have. I think this is what happened--the husband made the choice, right? I am not very familiar with the case but didn't she have a will or DNR which expressed her wishes? The parents shouldn't have made the choice because they were not the next-of-kin and they cannot go against Schiavo's wishes.
The law says it is up to the parents to decide what happens to their children, including in the case of abortion.
Again, I am not assigning rights to the unborn, YOU are. I am merely pointing out those rights are selective.
Actually, the law says the unborn child may live or not live.

reply from: Banned Member

If you are trying to suggest that our pro-life argument based upon rights to the unborn justifies abortion by extension, you are simply wrong.
Your argument in any case would first require that you concede that we are correct in asserting that the unborn have rights. Once the unborn have rights, that makes them people. Rights can only be excercised by people, not unliving things. It is and would continue to be unlawful to kill people, even unborn peopl, without a just cause. And a woman being pregnant may be an incoveniance to her, if she is selfish enough to believe that, or it may even seem an intrusion, but the unborn child is not an immediate threat to her and no killing of the unborn could ever be considered a just cause.

reply from: Faramir

Her "husband" had been shacked up with another woman for years.
It sucks that HE was considered to be a husband at all.

reply from: yoda

You go from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous. NO ONE other than the person whose life is in question has the moral right to make that decision.... so the decision SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY ANYONE ELSE...... !!
The child will be able to make it's own decisions if allowed to live, why are you so desperate to keep that from happening?
You haven't done any such thing. IF you want to give unborn humans the "right not to live", all you need do is allow the child to live long enough to make it's own decision, and act on it.
Anything else is the moral equivalent of murder. Are you okay with that?

reply from: Teresa18

It's cool.
Science says they are persons. Those who support abortion say they aren't in order to dehumanize them to keep abortion legal in the same manner slave owners did with blacks to keep slavery legal. The Constitution says all persons have the right to life. It doesn't specify the location, size, or level of development.
It is relevant. You said, "But if an unborn child truly has rights over its own body, it has the right to NOT live just as much as it has the right to live." I began my response saying that suicide is illegal except in very select cases in Oregon. There basically is no right not to live in the U.S. You continued, "Of course, an unborn child cannot make a decision such as this. So who should?" I then continued my response saying that regardless of whether suicide is legal, it doesn't matter. One person does not have the right to end the life of another. That is HOMICIDE. Adding to your point that an unborn child can't make this decision, I added that children and severely ill/disabled are unable to make this decision either. You said the woman knows best about the situation so she can decide what to do in pregnancy. Well, if she's the one caring for the children and severely ill/disabled, and they are unable to make that decision, then she would know best. Hence, there could be clinics set up where she could bring them in to be euthanized.
In a legal sense, yes. I'll switch to homicide which does apply. However, the law is not always moral or correct. The law declared black persons nonpersons in slavery able to be owned and killed, but that did not make them nonpersons. They were still persons. The law declared Jews nonpersons able to be killed, but that did not make it so. They were still persons.

reply from: nancyu

from the Genocide Awareness Project
PERSONHOOD DEFINED
"Humanity," however, is quite different from "personhood." As seen above, the humanity of the unborn child is a matter of objective science. Personhood, however, is a legal status which society can confer upon or withhold from a class of human beings as a function of the subjective values which inform our "politics." In the medical ethics text entitled Abortion, Medicine and the Law, 4th Edition, Butler & Walbert, p.18, Facts On File, 1992, personhood is discussed in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, supra: "... [T]he Court specifically repudiated the claim that fetuses are persons within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment ...."
We, therefore, know when life begins but we must decide at what point in the development of that life, we, as a society, will confer rights of personhood, the most fundamental of which is the right to not be slaughtered. The competing developmental points at which society might grant personhood include fertilization of the ovum, implantation of the blastocyst, viability of the fetus (ability to survive outside the uterus), birth, or the passage of some period following birth (in his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, 1993, Professor Singer of Princeton University, shockingly advocates the denial of personhood until one month following a child's birth).
So terms such as zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc. merely describe arbitrarily defined stages in the biological development of a human life. But the inclusiveness with which we extend rights of personhood defines our collective morality. Are we greedy or generous? Are we brutal or compassionate?
PERSONHOOD SELFISHLY LIMITED
Dominant societies have traditionally been selfish in the way they grant personhood. Ours is no exception. When a vulnerable group gets in our way or has something we want, we tend to define personhood in terms which exclude them. Indians got in the way of Westward settlement so we said they were subhuman to justify taking their land. We wanted the uncompensated work product of blacks so we said they were subhuman to justify taking their freedom. Unborn children have gotten in the way of our "liberation" so we say they are subhuman to justify taking their lives.
HATE LANGUAGE TO DEHUMANIZE THE UNBORN
In a crude attack piece featured in the April 12, 1990 issue of Parade magazine, the late Carl Sagan, a viciously pro-abortion astro-physicist, mocked unborn children as animals, comparing them with "segmented worms," "fish," "amphibians," "newts," "tadpoles," "reptiles" and "pigs." Dr. Sagan's language was as mean and hateful as that of any racist. Note the parallel with an article appearing in Time magazine, August 23, 1999, which reported that many neo-nazis who are members of the white supremacist group, Aryan Nation believe "... non-whites are 'mud people' on the level of animals."
My question to you is, do you identify with these neo nazis? Is this who you are, is this who you want to be?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/#reagan

Proclamation 5761
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 1988

PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION

January 14, 1988

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon the accumulated wisdom derived from centuries of experiments in self-government, a gift that has irrevocably changed humanity's future. Our gift is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the generations. Our declaration and defense of our rights have made us and kept us free and have sent a tide of hope and inspiration around the globe.

One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America's unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million infants before birth; the pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.

We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told that we may not "impose our morality'' on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before birth; yet no one calls it "imposing morality" to prohibit the taking of life after people are born. We are told as well that there exists a "right" to end the lives of unborn children; yet no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark contradiction of each person's fundamental right to life.

That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm. That we have killed the unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor could any number of killings ever do so. The unalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.

All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality -- that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize all of the medical evidence.

Our nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically at odds with our history, our heritage, and our concepts of justice. This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the "humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to protect the life of each person before birth." This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America's unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of every human life.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twelfth.

Ronald Reagan

reply from: nancyu

And I Nancy Uhde, as a citizen of the United States of America, do declare that yes, all human beings are persons, from conception until natural death.

reply from: Smurfy

LOL Reagan...there's a star politician.
*Grins*

reply from: Faramir

One of the greatest leaders ever.
If I didn't believe in God, I'd be temted to worship him.
Was it Socrates who said, "You get the government you deserve"?
In the case of Reagan, we didn't deserve him. He was a gift from God.

reply from: sander

Let's hope he's not the last "gift" of that caliber.
And that we don't "deserve" Obama or Clinton. *shudder*
He was a great man and a great president.

reply from: nancyu

Obviously.
You poor poor dear battling depression. Why don't you try battling something outside of YOURSELF. Try caring for someone besides YOURSELF. Your depression would instantly disappear. Your friends, family and the mental health "professionals" who are supporting you are your "enablers" to use their term.
We are here to defend the lives of innocent and defenseless children, and their posterity. No we wouldn't support a mother's right to kill her children after they are born, either, and laws do protect them after they are born. Our argument is that they are entitled to protection before they are born also. The laws protecting a woman's right to choose above a child's right to live are abhorrent.
I've been looking everywhere for the argument that justifies these laws, and there isn't one. It does not exist. Abortion is wrong. It is murder, it is wrong.
I care for and help others with similar problems to mine every day--it is part of my job. Unfortunately, that is not what cures depressoin, and unless you are a mental health professional I suggest you stop purporting to know what does. If you honestly think friends, family and mental health professionals are "enablers" to those with depression or other mental afflictions you are clearly very misguided.
Don't need to be a medical professional to know that you need more than professional mental help.

reply from: nancyu

There IS such a thing as a woman's bodily autonomy and a right to choose--the laws supporting elective abortion provide a woman with that very thing. You can wish women didn't have bodily autonomy or a right to choose but unless the law is changed it is just wishful thinking. Along the same lines, unborn children do not have rights--laws grant rights and there are no laws granting those rights to the unborn at this time. You saying that the unborn have rights does not make it so.
And for the millionth time, the "death of the unborn" is not "the only choice" we advocate for--I want every woman to decide for herself whether she wants or doesn't want her unborn child. If she does, fine. If she doesn't, fine.
And what if a woman uses three types of contraception during sex and still gets pregnant--do you think she WANTED to get pregnant? Should men never have sex unless they want to get a woman pregnant?
I think what you are seeking is gender equality for women. The right to not get pregnant if she doesn't want to, since men don't. If you want to not get pregnant, have a hystorectomy, there will then be no chance of becoming pregnant.
If you just don't want to get pregnant "right now" but you might "later" then tough *****, you're taking your chances. Once that child is conceived it is here, it is alive, and you can't just kill it because it's convenient for you to do so.

reply from: Teresa18

Yep. That must be why you say it about the unborn childs all the time.

reply from: yoda

Yep. That must be why you say it about the unborn child's all the time.
About 4,000 times a day, just in this country......

reply from: nancyu

Yep. That must be why you say it about the unborn child's all the time.
About 4,000 times a day, just in this country......

reply from: cracrat

You can kill it. It's not right that people do, but it is certainly possibly. That's the whole point of this site/forum/campaign.
It is something that has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The only difference is that for the last 35 years, Americans have been able to go to their doctor and have it done professionally. Which is what seems to get your hackles up.
I'm yet to hear anyone spell out what they're going to do about the illegal abortions that'd continue if the law was changed. 'Hunt them, catch them, punish them' isn't a plan, since there will be no place to start the hunt, no witnesses who can speak up about the act and precious little evidence to back up any assertions made by the authorities.

reply from: faithman

You can kill it. It's not right that people do, but it is certainly possibly. That's the whole point of this site/forum/campaign.
It is something that has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The only difference is that for the last 35 years, Americans have been able to go to their doctor and have it done professionally. Which is what seems to get your hackles up.
I'm yet to hear anyone spell out what they're going to do about the illegal abortions that'd continue if the law was changed. 'Hunt them, catch them, punish them' isn't a plan, since there will be no place to start the hunt, no witnesses who can speak up about the act and precious little evidence to back up any assertions made by the authorities.
And the point you are missing is this. Legal abortion on demand makes every American citizen responcible for 4000 baby deaths everyday. We The People are the government in America. We The People are now tolerating the legal slaughter of womb children, and our hard earned tax money funds it. It is also a fact that abortion numbers will automaticly go WWWWWAAAAAYYYYY down if made illegal. And I am sure that law enforcement is smart enough to go under cover to catch abortionist. Troy Newman recently bought an abortion clinic that was literally covered in blood on the inside. Abortion is not a neat little operation, and dead baBY BODIES LEAVE wwwwaaaayyyy TO MUCH evidence that a womb child was murdered. Finally, we have unsolved crime a plenty, but that does not mean we need to do away with the laws that stand against evil doers. Just because a criminal temporarily "gets away with it" mean that we should do away with laws designed to protect the innocent from a horible death. Alot of folks will drive drunk today without getting caught. Go tell MADD you want to get rid of DWI laws because they don't stop drunken fools from driving.

reply from: nancyu

You can kill it. It's not right that people do, but it is certainly possibly. That's the whole point of this site/forum/campaign.
It is something that has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The only difference is that for the last 35 years, Americans have been able to go to their doctor and have it done professionally. Which is what seems to get your hackles up.
I'm yet to hear anyone spell out what they're going to do about the illegal abortions that'd continue if the law was changed. 'Hunt them, catch them, punish them' isn't a plan, since there will be no place to start the hunt, no witnesses who can speak up about the act and precious little evidence to back up any assertions made by the authorities.
I stand corrected. Yes you can. And by a professional no less. Would it get your back up if murder were legalized so that it could be done professionally, even humanely. I bet you wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

reply from: nancyu

You can kill it. It's not right that people do, but it is certainly possibly. That's the whole point of this site/forum/campaign.
It is something that has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The only difference is that for the last 35 years, Americans have been able to go to their doctor and have it done professionally. Which is what seems to get your hackles up.
I'm yet to hear anyone spell out what they're going to do about the illegal abortions that'd continue if the law was changed. 'Hunt them, catch them, punish them' isn't a plan, since there will be no place to start the hunt, no witnesses who can speak up about the act and precious little evidence to back up any assertions made by the authorities.
There is no statute of limitation on murder. And haven't you ever watched Forensic Files? It's amazing what evidence can be found when it is sought. You should definitely be afraid, very afraid of it becoming outlawed. I am confident we can find every abortionist and his/her conspirators and send them to be slaughtered. An eye for an eye, after all. And how about we tear them limb from limb as they did to that child, or burn them with some sort of saline solution, as they did to that child. How about we suck them into a jar as they did to that child.
However. lucky for you most of us wouldn't advocate this. Not even close to the numbers of people who advocate abortion. Aren't you relieved?

reply from: sander

It's only laughable to those whose hearts have become stone cold.
It didn't take a special squad before RvW and it won't after.
You make a mockery of child killing.
Those who see life as priceless don't share in your joke.

reply from: sander

Originally posted by: joueravecfou
You made my point for me - LOVE when that happens. There wasn't a special squad, because it WASN'T PROSECUTED!
Nancy there claimed that we "should be very afraid because she is confident they can find every abortionist and his/her conspirators and send them to be slaughtered." I was asking how on earth she could be so confident without any consideration whatsoever on how that would ACTUALLY occur.
Abortionist were prosecuted.
All the prolife movement wants is for the child in the womb to receive personhood status. Once that is accomplished there will be no need for any special laws, squads or any other of your theoretical nonsense.
Your mockery of life still stands, it's pathetic, but we're use to it...oh God, how we're use to it.

reply from: faithman

And the point you are missing is this. Legal abortion on demand makes every American citizen responcible for 4000 baby deaths everyday. We The People are the government in America. We The People are now tolerating the legal slaughter of womb children, and our hard earned tax money funds it. It is also a fact that abortion numbers will automaticly go WWWWWAAAAAYYYYY down if made illegal. And I am sure that law enforcement is smart enough to go under cover to catch abortionist. Troy Newman recently bought an abortion clinic that was literally covered in blood on the inside. Abortion is not a neat little operation, and dead baBY BODIES LEAVE wwwwaaaayyyy TO MUCH evidence that a womb child was murdered. Finally, we have unsolved crime a plenty, but that does not mean we need to do away with the laws that stand against evil doers. Just because a criminal temporarily "gets away with it" mean that we should do away with laws designed to protect the innocent from a horible death. Alot of folks will drive drunk today without getting caught. Go tell MADD you want to get rid of DWI laws because they don't stop drunken fools from driving.

reply from: yoda

What do we do about the illegal murders that continue to happen?
And yes, there will be ways to get evidence. There will always be "whistleblowers".

reply from: yoda

There already are. They're called pro-life activists.

reply from: yoda

They don't need it. They will be like a "neighborhood watch" program.

reply from: faithman

All americans have "legal authority" to stop crime.

reply from: sander

Nobody is so niave to think that abortions won't continue after the child in the womb receives personhood.
Just like murders in general will never stop though there are laws against it.
The point is to develope a culture of life where everyone born or unborn is respected and given the chance to pursue happiness.
Further, to live in a nation where our people join together to protect the defensless, born and unborn. Where selflessness is lauded instead of self.
Where personal responsibility is held in high regard and not cheapened and excuses made to evade it at the expense of the unborn.
That's the crux of how I view the prolife movement. I see the unborn as my brother or sister.

reply from: faithman

You are just SSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO willingly stupid. When abortion is made murder, it will simply be the duty of homocide squads already in existance to investigater reported violations, and already existant district atorneys to prosicute said crimes. No new laws, or special law enforcement needed. The same laws that govern the born, will govern the pre-born. The same police that investigate the killing of the born would treat the pre-born like wise. Your absurd musings , while entertaining, are full of crap.

reply from: yoda

How does it hold up in court if a neighborhood watch participant reports something to the police, and they conduct an investigation which results in an arrest?
Why do you try so hard to seem dense?

reply from: sander

How does it hold up in court if a neighborhood watch participant reports something to the police, and they conduct an investigation which results in an arrest?
Why do you try so hard to seem dense?
It's called denial.
And anything to defuse and deflect the real issue, the murder of innocent, defnesless children in the womb.

reply from: cracrat

If you were to be murdered tomorrow, your body would turn up, or someone would notice you not going to group or whatever. This would be reported, the police would investigate, evidence collected, court case brought, etc.
A woman of 23 finds she is pregnant. She logs on to the internet, finds the site she's after and reads. She takes a few hundred milligrams of warfarin (rat poison, don't try this at home kids), it thins her blood, the embryo bleeds uncontrollably and miscarries a couple of days later, she flushes the evidence down the toilet. No body, no evidence, no crime so far as the authorities are aware. By your law, she has commited murder. How will she be prosecuted?
Yoda didn't answer properly last time I asked. If the unborn is recognised as a person by the law, will there be investigations into any and every miscarriage to ensure no foul play? Will woman who induce miscarriage by accident be guilty of manslaughter (3rd degree murder I think you call it)? Will women who drink and smoke or don't take their vitamins during pregnancy be guilty of assault?
These are not questions to be decided by the courts, these are questions that would be asked by any half competant legislator before they agree to the new law.

reply from: cracrat

Had I been raised in a society in which murder was acceptable, my solution to what I hope i would see as a problem would probably be the same as my solution to abortion rates as they are today.

reply from: cracrat

No, I have never watched Forensic Files. A 6 foot, 200lb body is hard to hide/dispose of and therefore easy for investigators to find. A 3 inch, 2oz feotus could be buried anywhere, hidden in a matchbox, if not flushed down the loo. Exactly where to the investigators start there search? The sewage works?
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38 - 39)
You're a ***** Christian.
"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi

reply from: yoda

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Where is Jimmy Hoffa today?
First, she may have family or friends that know what she is doing, and report her. Second, it's playing Russian Roulette to self-abort without having an ultrasound to determine if the pregnancy is ectopic or not, and that is a red flag to anyone who is trying to suppress self-abortions. And third, many of these women who self-abort will wind up in the hospital or at their doctors for treatment of the side effects, and doctors are obliged to report any suspicious wounds or illnesses to the authorities. So, there are always ways to counter one technology with another, if you really want to.
He didn't? (Why are we speaking about him in the third person?)
Answering such questions will be the responsibility of each individual state, and each individual prosecutor. I have never known such hypotheticals to be an obstruction to the saving of innocent human life, and I don't think it would be in this case, do you? Or are you just being sarcastic?
No new law is needed, don't you get it? Personhood can be established merely by overturning Roe in such a way as to recognize the humanity of the unborn.
But IF a legislature did decide to pass personhood legislation, then it would be up to them to answer those question, right? We debaters on forums like this would not need to do that, would we?

reply from: yoda

In Detroit recently, they were found in a dumpster. That's our word for a "dust bin", as you Limeys call them.

reply from: faithman

In Detroit recently, they were found in a dumpster. That's our word for a "dust bin", as you Limeys call them.
If a "doctor" were to order a comercial meat grinder, or garbage disposal, I think red flags would go up. These "tools" are currently used to dispose of the "product of conception" in abortion mills. You can not kill children for a living, and not leave evidence of your carrier choice. Abortion is a very messy business, and there is usually more than three [mom, dad, child] people involved. The main thing is, as I have stated several times, Our tax money would not enable the industry to exist, the bottom would drop out of the number of abortions done everyday, and sociaty as a whole would value human life at it's origan, which will only increase the value of all citizens. The way we are going, it won't be long before the less valuable of us are carted off to a center to be used for spare parts for the more valuable. That is the major difference in world views here. the secular humanist would have no problem parting out the less desirable to maintain the quality of life for the elite. This maybe already happening in China, as the prisons may have become human chop shops to suply organs on the open medical market. We already do that here. We call it stem cell research.

reply from: yoda

So, if you're sure that no one will ever detect such abortions, what's your problem?
Aren't you anxious to see that women have all of them they want? What's your problem?

reply from: faithman

Pleaaaaaase explain how any of this meaningless drivel has anything to do with establishing personhood for the womb child? Please explain how murders not getting caught has anything to do with establishings laws that at least try to protect the innocent? Please explain why we should answere such stupid punk a$$ed pro-death scanc scum bag magot questions that are designed to cloud a perfectly clear issue? The issue is quite simple. The womb child is every bit a person as a born child. They should be under the same laws, and protections as a born child, no matter how many killer scanc worthless scum bag moms "choose " to kill them. Just because some get away with a horible crime does it mean we should decriminalize the crime? You are an unreasonable baby killer, SOOOO it does not suprise anyone here that you post unreasonable crap to defend the indefencable.

reply from: sander

Yeah, what ^ he said!
Good job, Faithman!

reply from: cracrat

Pleaaaaaase explain how any of this meaningless drivel has anything to do with establishing personhood for the womb child? Please explain how murders not getting caught has anything to do with establishings laws that at least try to protect the innocent? Please explain why we should answere such stupid punk a$$ed pro-death scanc scum bag magot questions that are designed to cloud a perfectly clear issue? The issue is quite simple. The womb child is every bit a person as a born child. They should be under the same laws, and protections as a born child, no matter how many killer scanc worthless scum bag moms "choose " to kill them. Just because some get away with a horible crime does it mean we should decriminalize the crime? You are an unreasonable baby killer, SOOOO it does not suprise anyone here that you post unreasonable crap to defend the indefencable.
In this country, and I assume yours, every death of a person must have a reason attributed to it by an appropriate professional, be it a doctor or coroner etc. to establish if further investigation is necessary. If the unborn are recognised as people just like you and me before the law, then any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth would have to be investigated as to the cause.
For the first 5 months or so of the pregnancy, it can be terminated without anybody else even knowing it had begun. How will your new law protect those children? If these children are going to be afforded legal protection from murder, why not also assault, GBH, ABH or any other physical crime against their person? The vast majority of these crimes would go undetected and unpunished without a police state apparatus that Stalin or Hitler would be proud of. Your new law would be almost entirely unenforcable and so almost entirely pointless.
Modern communication media means that it would not be necessary for a would-be mother to find a sympathetic doctor or nurse, she could find the information she needs to end any but a very late term pregnancy on the internet. Or take a budget holiday to a part of the world where such law(s) don't exist. Would you advocate America policing the world's abortion laws too? We can all see how well it tends to work when you lot try policing other laws.

reply from: faithman

Pleaaaaaase explain how any of this meaningless drivel has anything to do with establishing personhood for the womb child? Please explain how murders not getting caught has anything to do with establishings laws that at least try to protect the innocent? Please explain why we should answere such stupid punk a$$ed pro-death scanc scum bag magot questions that are designed to cloud a perfectly clear issue? The issue is quite simple. The womb child is every bit a person as a born child. They should be under the same laws, and protections as a born child, no matter how many killer scanc worthless scum bag moms "choose " to kill them. Just because some get away with a horible crime does it mean we should decriminalize the crime? You are an unreasonable baby killer, SOOOO it does not suprise anyone here that you post unreasonable crap to defend the indefencable.
In this country, and I assume yours, every death of a person must have a reason attributed to it by an appropriate professional, be it a doctor or coroner etc. to establish if further investigation is necessary. If the unborn are recognised as people just like you and me before the law, then any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth would have to be investigated as to the cause.
For the first 5 months or so of the pregnancy, it can be terminated without anybody else even knowing it had begun. How will your new law protect those children? If these children are going to be afforded legal protection from murder, why not also assault, GBH, ABH or any other physical crime against their person? The vast majority of these crimes would go undetected and unpunished without a police state apparatus that Stalin or Hitler would be proud of. Your new law would be almost entirely unenforcable and so almost entirely pointless.
Modern communication media means that it would not be necessary for a would-be mother to find a sympathetic doctor or nurse, she could find the information she needs to end any but a very late term pregnancy on the internet. Or take a budget holiday to a part of the world where such law(s) don't exist. Would you advocate America policing the world's abortion laws too? We can all see how well it tends to work when you lot try policing other laws.
You are just incredibly stupid. We already have laws against asaulting a womb child if the mother wants them. Only reported murders are investigated. And a great deal of the responsibilty would fall on the medical profession to report. Just like resonable suspision of child abuse. It is only pointless in your completely dumb a$$ eyes, because you love that babies are leagally killed. What happens in other parts of the world have no bearing on what we do hear. It is leagal for muslims to kill christians and jews in other countries. But that doesn't have anything to do with us making it illegal here. You are trying SSSSSOOOOOOOOOO hard to be a smart a$$, but you only prove how incredibly stupid and foolish you are. And it is not escaping the notice of anyone that you totally ignore our questions, and only post your pro-baby killing drivel. Just because some get away with murder, we should do away with all laws against murder? That is what your stupid logic would demand if we followed it. And just because muslims kill christians and jews in other countries, we should over turn all laws that prohibit them doing it here? You are a fool, and the more you post, the more that is evident.

reply from: sander

You're the one with reading comprehension problems.
It's been told you countless times, there is NOTHING to work out.
There are all ready laws on the books protecting those with "personhood" status.
Those laws would transfer to the the unborn as then being reconized with the same status as the born.
You just want to go on a tirade about nothing.
And try leaving your smugness at the door for once.

reply from: cracrat

Your comparisons of abortion to murder are irrelevant from a practical standpoint. If a person is murdered, they are usually missed, reported and an investigation begins. The police do what they do and hopeully the perpetrator is caught, tried and punished accordingly.
Assume that abortion is illegal, the womb-child is a person, etc. A woman finds out she is pregnant. For whatever reason she decides she can't bring it to term and must seek an abortion. She can either visit harm upon her child herself and cause a miscarriage or find a sympathetic medical professional to do the deed for her. She knows she is breaking the law so doesn't tell anyone except the doctor/nurse who carries out the abortion. She knows that if she is found out, she and the medic will be done for pre-meditated murder. Why exactly would she report herself to the police? A person has been unlawfully killed, how will the perpetrators be punished?
A better comparison is to the drugs trade. At the consumption level, usually the only people who know a crime has been committed are the people who committed the crime. Except that abortion would be harder to prosecute because there wouldn't be people driving around with big boxes of abortion in their boot(trunk). There wouldn't be people pulled over for eratic driving because they're all high on abortion. There wouldn't be international gangs smuggling crates of abortion over borders.
Your legal and moral ideals are a nice idea when considering the utopian vision we'd all like to live in. Unfortunately, when utopian visions are applied to the real world they tend to break down. The unintended consequences of what you seek would cause immeasurable harm, particularly once people have figured out the ways around the law.
Any other questions you've asked which I failed to answer?

reply from: faithman

All your stupid hypotheticals are missing the point. The point you refuse to address. There is no one here under any illusion that evil people will not continue to do evil if it is illegal to do evil. We are all well aware that we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people, but that does not stop us from striving towards perfection. It is just as wrong to kill the pre-born as the born. That is the issue, not all your stupid what ifs and hypotheticals. It is a fact, not a what if, that millions of children will be saved if abortion on demand is finally made the crime that it is. It is undeniable that the abortion industry collapses, and at least 300 million dollars of tax money can be properly diverty into legitimate health care needs. It is a fact that millions in america are being forced to suport the abortion industry against their will thru taxes. It is a fact that no new laws will have to be passed, and no new special units in law enforcement instituted. All laws governing the born, will simply be transfered to the womb child when personhood is established. We have thousands of missing folks in this country that were more than likely murdered. Just because they are missing doesn't keep us from looking, and just because they may never be found, does it mean we change the laws governing murder. What you are failiong to unserstand is that we feel that the murder of a womb child is exactly the same as the murder of a born person. Evenm if the murder may never be caught does it mean we should devalue their innocent victim, and say it is perfectly fine to kill them because we can't stop it anyway.

reply from: cracrat

I'm not saying it is fine to kill the unborn because it is hard to stop it. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't try because it might be hard. I'm saying, as I have all along, that I think there are better ways to go about stopping the killing. For a law to work, it must be enforceable, if it is not then it is a pointless law. Prohibition was repealed because it was roundly ignored, ID cards in this country will never come in because the laws won't work, one day all our drugs laws will be undone because they are mostly ineffective. Changes to the abortion laws will, for the most part, not stop the killing and so are pointless.
It is a waste of all your energies campaigning for these changes, if they come in you will immediately have to switch to expending all your energies defending these new law(s). Unless we reach out and teach people, we can not hope to bring about an end to abortion. And if we do reach out and teach and bring about the end, then the legal changes are moot.
It is my considered opinion that the ranting you all do in favour of getting a legal ban is cock-eyed approach that will not make any difference that couldn't be made in other ways, and will most likely cause all sorts of damage that you can not or do not anticipate.

reply from: faithman

It is most assuredly enforceable. there would be no more free standing abortion clinics. There would be no more abortion adds in the phone book. There would be no more abortionist living in the light of day, and most assuredly looking over their shoulders if the continue to practice killing womb children for hire. What about the damage done to 4000 womb persons this very day? to damage evil doers is exactly my cause if you havent noticed. I could care less about all the stupid hypotheticals you bortheads want to throw out there. It is right to stand for personhood of the womb child. It is right to advocate that they have the same consideration as the born child. And it is quite simple to merely establish personhood for their sakes. If a killer mom is hell bent on killing her womb child, then she had best be discrete. But the same creator who endowed the unalienable right to life to the womb child sits in a court none of us can avoid or hide from. I think I will stand before that same Creator some day, and my consiance will at least be cleared from doing nothing about the slaughter of those who bear His pre-born image. Just because all may not be brought to justice, and some seem to escape it, does it mean we should not establish it.

reply from: faithman

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!

reply from: yoda

IF that IS the case, then why do you care?

reply from: cracrat

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!
If a woman finds out she is pregnant, doesn't want to keep the baby but abortion is illegal, she is unlikely to tell anyone her intentions. She won't tell her boyfriend, her mum, her sister, anyone, because to do so would risk prosecution when they realise she's no longer pregnant.
Woman takes few hundreds miligrams of warfarin, causes miscarriage and a couple of days sick in bed. Person murdered, no prosecution,
Woman flushes her uterus with a few litres of saline solution. Baby is washed out, day or two to recover. Person murdered, no prosecution.
Woman takes 4 or 5 contraceptive or HRT pills. Hormone imbalance ruins early pregnancy and miscarries. Person murdered, no prosecution.
There are probably hundreds more 'home remedies' to unwanted pregnancies, available to anyone who can read. The level of surveilance required to enforce your proposed changes would make a mockery of your consitution. You would succeed in closing down Planned Parenthood and any other such industrial scale abortion providers, but equally succeed in generating a whole cottage industry of small time abortion providers. If you don't tackle the demand, it won't go away. Why do you find this so hard to understand?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's what PP says about mandatory reporting for statutory rape, too.

reply from: faithman

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!
If a woman finds out she is pregnant, doesn't want to keep the baby but abortion is illegal, she is unlikely to tell anyone her intentions. She won't tell her boyfriend, her mum, her sister, anyone, because to do so would risk prosecution when they realise she's no longer pregnant.
Woman takes few hundreds miligrams of warfarin, causes miscarriage and a couple of days sick in bed. Person murdered, no prosecution,
Woman flushes her uterus with a few litres of saline solution. Baby is washed out, day or two to recover. Person murdered, no prosecution.
Woman takes 4 or 5 contraceptive or HRT pills. Hormone imbalance ruins early pregnancy and miscarries. Person murdered, no prosecution.
There are probably hundreds more 'home remedies' to unwanted pregnancies, available to anyone who can read. The level of surveilance required to enforce your proposed changes would make a mockery of your consitution. You would succeed in closing down Planned Parenthood and any other such industrial scale abortion providers, but equally succeed in generating a whole cottage industry of small time abortion providers. If you don't tackle the demand, it won't go away. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
Just because some will kill at home, does it make it illegitamate to advocate justice for the womb child. Just because some may cercumvent a law, does it make it wrong to legislate it. the malor reason for the high numbers of abortion in this country is availability. You get rid of the industry, abortion numbers go WWWWWAAAAYYYYY down. Just because a few may go on to kill does it make it any less right to make murdering the womb child a crime. No matter what the difficulties may be, it is still the right thing to do. As you state evil people would still kill. But at least the rest of us would not be forced against our will to pay for it. At least not all Americans would be guilty of the slaughter, only those who choose to do the evil deed would be guilty, no matter if the got caught or not.

reply from: sander

IF that IS the case, then why do you care?
He just likes to hear himself talk, we've had enough of those here to reconize his type.
The baby in the womb has been so de-humanized to this character that he thinks he's making a legitimate argument.

reply from: yoda

No, you don't know any more now that you did before. We are not specialists in law enforcement here, and neither are you.

reply from: teddybearhamster

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!

sounds like you want the third reich back in existance nazi.

reply from: faithman

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!

sounds like you want the third reich back in existance nazi.
You are the Nazi, and advocate abortion just like they did.

reply from: teddybearhamster

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!

sounds like you want the third reich back in existance nazi.
You are the Nazi, and advocate abortion just like they did.
no you're the nazi who wants to destroy womens freedom and force feed your religion, NAZI

reply from: faithman

Maybe imposible for you because you are a dumb a$$ed scum bag maggot punk borthead. There will be all kinds of "red flaggs" that will trigger manditory reporting, and manditory investigating the abuse of the womb child, just like there is reasonable suspision triggers that make manditory reporting, and investigation of the abuse of born children. You make out like women are all alone when pregnant. That is rarely the case. And it would be manditory for all citizens to report abuse of any child who is being abused if personhood is established, just like it already is for the born child now. That is most assuredly POSSIBLE!!

sounds like you want the third reich back in existance nazi.
You are the Nazi, and advocate abortion just like they did.
no you're the nazi who wants to destroy womens freedom and force feed your religion, NAZI
You are one sick you woman. there is only one cure for your disease. The Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.

reply from: teddybearhamster

[qYou are one sick you woman. there is only one cure for your disease. The Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.
i tried god but he hates me. so i hate him too.

reply from: faithman

i tried god but he hates me. so i hate him too.
Silly girl !!! You don't try God. You surrender to Him as Lord!!

reply from: teddybearhamster

why would i surrender to the one who hates me that much?

reply from: faithman

why would i surrender to the one who hates me that much?
Because you are on the wrong side of Him. He most assuredly hates the workers of evil. But He became flesh, died for that same evil, and offers evil doers a way of escape thru the sacrifice of His own blood. You have tried the pasture of His hate. How about walking thru the gate of the Only begotten, into the pasture of His love?

reply from: teddybearhamster

why would i surrender to the one who hates me that much?
Because you are on the wrong side of Him. He most assuredly hates the workers of evil. But He became flesh, died for that same evil, and offers evil doers a way of escape thru the sacrifice of His own blood. You have tried the pasture of His hate. How about walking thru the gate of the Only begotten, into the pasture of His love?
i just don't believe that his 'love' has ever been or ever will be available to me. if he loves children so much and hates evil people then why do bad people have kids everyday?

reply from: faithman

why would i surrender to the one who hates me that much?
Because you are on the wrong side of Him. He most assuredly hates the workers of evil. But He became flesh, died for that same evil, and offers evil doers a way of escape thru the sacrifice of His own blood. You have tried the pasture of His hate. How about walking thru the gate of the Only begotten, into the pasture of His love?
i just don't believe that his 'love' has ever been or ever will be available to me. if he loves children so much and hates evil people then why do bad people have kids everyday?
Because of the covenant He made with man. He gave dominion of the earth to man for a season. He also gave man a legitimate choice to either hate or love Him. You can choice to continue to hate Him, and number yourself with those to do evil, or you can use that free will He gave you to love Him, and allow Him to manifest His glory thru you as a witness to the rest of the earth. The only cure for your pain, is surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ. The love you seek is in Him. Just ask Him if He is real, to manifest Himself to you. But when He reviels Himself to you, don't turn Him away. Don't harden your heart to the one who wants to bless you.

reply from: pilgrim

You obviously have not watch the ultra sound of a baby being aborted. You can clearly see the baby recoil to the back of the womb as the knives get closer and his heartbeat go's from 60-beats a minute to about 120 beats per minute before they start cutting him up. Now tell me again how that baby did not want to live. he was scared and he tried to get away from the knives .but could only go so far and they cut him up his legs first , He did fight for his rights the best he could but he ran out of room .check the movie called the silent scream. also you might want to check out ABORT73,COM AND ABORTIONNO.ORG and really see what abortion is all about if you have the stomach for it. Learn the truth

reply from: sander

If "Silent Scream" doesn't touch the heart of someone who sees it, then it's obvious nothing will.
I love the story behind the film, the doctor who perfomed the abortion said that was the last abortion he would ever perform.

reply from: pilgrim

God love's us all, good and bad and his mercy is awesome when we go astray and are away from him he still loves us and wants us to come back to him he waits for us in his great mercy as, christ is mercy but you have to do it ask him for forgiveness and tell him you want and need him

reply from: pilgrim

God love's us all, good and bad and his mercy is awesome when we go astray and are away from him he still loves us and wants us to come back to him he waits for us in his great mercy as, christ is mercy but you have to do it ask him for forgiveness and tell him you want and need him

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, pilgrim.

reply from: Teresa18

It's cool.
Science says they are persons. Those who support abortion say they aren't in order to dehumanize them to keep abortion legal in the same manner slave owners did with blacks to keep slavery legal. The Constitution says all persons have the right to life. It doesn't specify the location, size, or level of development.
It is relevant. You said, "But if an unborn child truly has rights over its own body, it has the right to NOT live just as much as it has the right to live." I began my response saying that suicide is illegal except in very select cases in Oregon. There basically is no right not to live in the U.S. You continued, "Of course, an unborn child cannot make a decision such as this. So who should?" I then continued my response saying that regardless of whether suicide is legal, it doesn't matter. One person does not have the right to end the life of another. That is HOMICIDE. Adding to your point that an unborn child can't make this decision, I added that children and severely ill/disabled are unable to make this decision either. You said the woman knows best about the situation so she can decide what to do in pregnancy. Well, if she's the one caring for the children and severely ill/disabled, and they are unable to make that decision, then she would know best. Hence, there could be clinics set up where she could bring them in to be euthanized.
In a legal sense, yes. I'll switch to homicide which does apply. However, the law is not always moral or correct. The law declared black persons nonpersons in slavery able to be owned and killed, but that did not make them nonpersons. They were still persons. The law declared Jews nonpersons able to be killed, but that did not make it so. They were still persons.
Where did rsg007 go? Bump!

reply from: galen

Jo
you can not have a heart rate of 60 and be dead.... go take a biology class.
Mary

reply from: galen

Yes i did ... did you? a fetal hb is ususally between 120-140 bpm.... however there are fluctuations that can be marked over days or hours... stress can cause these as can other things such as placental abruption and drugs of varius sorts... as long as the bpm are above 30 there is always a chance to correct a situation after that it tends not to be. however medicine has seen an occasional child with only an agonal type hb o ultrasound came back and fully ramp up to the normal bpm and never have another problem during gestation.
Mary RN

reply from: AshMarie88

What does that have to do with having a heartbeat period? NO ONE can have a heart beat of anything and be DEAD. If you're dead you'll have NO HEART BEAT!

reply from: AshMarie88

They're obviously never seen an ultrasound period.

reply from: galen

nah I gauge these 2 w/ a reading level of around 5th grade... who knows maybe they are 5th graders...
Mary

reply from: AshMarie88

You know what... All these pro-aborts keep saying all the abortion photos and videos are fake and blah blah blah. I'd LOVE to see one of them try and 'recreate" the same result with fake "dolls" and ketchup, like they think is what the photos consist of. And the videos, how in the heck can you make such an accurate looking video, whether it's Silent Scream or a live abortion as in Choice Blues part one?
I wanna see these pro-aborts create the same result without using a real aborted baby...

reply from: galen

and you have taken care of how many pregnant women?
I know pilgrim has not ... i can forgive her statements... you on the other hand speak like you think you are an authority on what is and is not normal during pregnancy.
Mary

reply from: galen

pilgrim is pretty new and never acted as if she were an authority ... just her reaction to a video... YOU on the other hand chimed in as if you were and expert...which you were not. Anyone can look at those videos and be moved... anyone can also go look up simple info on the web before making a statement of scientific fact. Sense you knew you were going to be using said type of facts why did you not check them out first.
Mary

reply from: pilgrim

I was addressing two different situations. There is a heartbeat at about 20 weeks that is a scientific fact. I did not mean to imply that the abortion I spoke about where the heart rate increased during the abortion was at 20 weeks . I was referring to a ultra sound of a abortion later in a pregnancy that was documented by a ultra sound proving that a baby does experience fear and pain during a second and third trimester The truth is out there. If you are to lazy to find it don't waste our time debating something that can be proven. Again watch the ultra sound movie SILENT SCREAM being informed helps you to be more intelligent. You might also check ABORT.COM AND ABORTIONNO.ORG Those pictures and the actual abortion on those web sites are not fake. if you think they are, you can join those people who believe the holocaust is fake. they will never except the truth either.

reply from: pilgrim

To galen I'll let the secret out I am a male who is married with eight kids and twenty one grandchildren. so I think I qualify for knowing a little about care of pregnant women.

reply from: galen

ok i'll give you that one.... but at least you didn't come in claiming that expertese.
Mary

reply from: sander

Congratulations, Pilgrim!
What a fine heritiage the Lord has give you and your wife! Blessings.

reply from: yoda

If anyone is entertaining the thought that this poster is a serious poster, this should disabuse you of that notion.
Dead hearts don't beat at all. Yet another one going to iggyland.

reply from: galen

because you are a hypocrite to call someone else out on incorrect info when you can not get your own info right either.....
idiot.
mary

reply from: galen

the fact that YOU didn't get it right the first time and then called out someone else for the same mistake... and are still here trying to justify yourself.
Mary

reply from: Teresa18

It's cool.
Science says they are persons. Those who support abortion say they aren't in order to dehumanize them to keep abortion legal in the same manner slave owners did with blacks to keep slavery legal. The Constitution says all persons have the right to life. It doesn't specify the location, size, or level of development.
It is relevant. You said, "But if an unborn child truly has rights over its own body, it has the right to NOT live just as much as it has the right to live." I began my response saying that suicide is illegal except in very select cases in Oregon. There basically is no right not to live in the U.S. You continued, "Of course, an unborn child cannot make a decision such as this. So who should?" I then continued my response saying that regardless of whether suicide is legal, it doesn't matter. One person does not have the right to end the life of another. That is HOMICIDE. Adding to your point that an unborn child can't make this decision, I added that children and severely ill/disabled are unable to make this decision either. You said the woman knows best about the situation so she can decide what to do in pregnancy. Well, if she's the one caring for the children and severely ill/disabled, and they are unable to make that decision, then she would know best. Hence, there could be clinics set up where she could bring them in to be euthanized.
In a legal sense, yes. I'll switch to homicide which does apply. However, the law is not always moral or correct. The law declared black persons nonpersons in slavery able to be owned and killed, but that did not make them nonpersons. They were still persons. The law declared Jews nonpersons able to be killed, but that did not make it so. They were still persons.
Bump!


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