Home - List All Discussions

When does a woman's right to choose end

Choicers say at birth....why

by: Hosea

A woman can have an abortion all nine months of pregnancy. What is so special about the day after birth. It is still her child a product of her body. Shouldn't she have the right to do with her child as she wishes. Can't she choose to leave the baby at home all day when she goes to work, school, or shopping. She has the right to do what she wants and she should not be limited by a baby?
What is the child is 2 and in the driveway. Doesn't she have the right to go where she pleases. Shouldn't she be able to back up and run over her child if the child gets in her way of doing what she wants in life?
This is what you are fighting for choicers but just a few days or months earlier.

reply from: saucie

Yoda posted this earlier; it totally relates to your points:
http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/060929.html

reply from: leftsfoil

Thanks saucie (and Yoda).. I hadn't seen that one yet. I'm sending that one around.

reply from: sk1bianca

what do you mean why?!?! because "DA STATE" says so!

reply from: SpitMcGee

After birth, when it no longer has a parasitic presence inside her body.

reply from: saucie

Children in the womb are not parasites....at least try and use a dictionary once in awhile.
Proaborts are among the most ignorant of groups of people on earth...you're a shinning example.

reply from: carolemarie

I am pretty sure the prochoice opinion is that women have the right to control their own bodies by not being pregnant when they don't want to. They focus totally on the woman and never consider the baby...
some prolifers are guilty of not giving a damn about the woman and only focusing on the baby.
What we need to do is work to find a way that both people, the baby and the mother can each have their life and their future, a win=win situtation, making abortion unnecessary

reply from: Hosea

That film does a good job. Thanks Saucie

reply from: 4given

From what I have learned, there is no necessary justification for abortion aside from the likelihood of death or permanent disability to the mother, if her child was not delivered immediately. For anyone to claim (outside of an obvious need to induce labor to save mom) that it is about anything more than a reckless desire to justify an urgency to seperate onself from the situation that complicates their life.. ie their offspring, then imo that implies dishonesty or ignorance. I don't believe most women are that ignorant, but I do believe that they want to believe the lies and ignore the reality. I agree about the baby/mom bit. I disagree with you that abortion is ever necessary.

reply from: saucie

The baby happens to pay the highest price...so, yes the urgency and emphasis is for their safety.
You on the other hand, don't give a "damn" about the baby.
So much so that you'd rather slam a prolifer and defend the proabort.
It truly is sickening to know there are people like you in the prolife camp, waging war against the idea that prolife values might actually take hold. Sad, really sad.

reply from: yoda

I think I'll post a special thread to get the word out.......

reply from: saucie

I think I'll post a special thread to get the word out.......
You'll upset CM and the rest of the proaborts.

reply from: yoda

I can only HOPE...........

reply from: carolemarie

1. I am not proabort, I work hard to help women choose life, but I am not willing to be hateful to those who make other choices, I would rather open dialog and try to help them change their point of view.
2. I never meant abortion was necessary, I should have typed that prochoice women feel that abortion is necessary. Women seeking abortion see the abortion as necessary and that is why they get them.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Children in the womb are not parasites....at least try and use a dictionary once in awhile.
Proaborts are among the most ignorant of groups of people on earth...you're a shinning example.
Fetuses are not by definition parasites, but they have parasitic qualities: they live in and grow off the body of a woman at her expense. "Parasite" is certainly a more accurate term to for a fetus than "child."

reply from: saucie

Children in the womb are not parasites....at least try and use a dictionary once in awhile.
Proaborts are among the most ignorant of groups of people on earth...you're a shinning example.
Fetuses are not by definition parasites, but they have parasitic qualities: they live in and grow off the body of a woman at her expense. "Parasite" is certainly a more accurate term to for a fetus than "child."
Parasite does not fit the child in the womb....really, you make the case very well that all proaborts are the most ignorant of all groups of individuals.
You can't be both a "parasite" and a "fetus"....what a dope!
Go back to school...you're in way over your head.

reply from: Rawr

Children in the womb are not parasites....at least try and use a dictionary once in awhile.
Proaborts are among the most ignorant of groups of people on earth...you're a shinning example.
Fetuses are not by definition parasites, but they have parasitic qualities: they live in and grow off the body of a woman at her expense. "Parasite" is certainly a more accurate term to for a fetus than "child."
You could say the same thing about babies and toddlers. They're completely dependent on others. If someone thinks a baby is more like a mindless parasitic mite or pest than a "child," does that make it okay to kill?
Also, "fetus" is a word that refers to the developmental stage of a human being, just like neonate or toddler. Its not like a human fetus is some sort of completely different animal. It'd be like saying we should be able to kill babies if we refer to them as the more "scientific" term of neonate.

reply from: sk1bianca

fleas suck blood out of their host. they produce a substance which prevents the blood from coagulating so they can suck some more.
a newborn baby sucks milk out of his mother. he encourages her body to produce more milk.
but we are not allowed to kill babies or to let them starve to death.

reply from: yoda

Do you always contradict yourself like that?
And do you have an alternative plan for the gestation of human beings, so that they will not have to exist "at the expense" of their mothers?
Or do you just want a rationalization for killing all unborn humans?
Oh, btw, many of your fellow baby killers say that the unborn are a "part of the mother", so how can they have a parasitic relationship with themselves?

reply from: saucie

Do you always contradict yourself like that?
And do you have an alternative plan for the gestation of human beings, so that they will not have to exist "at the expense" of their mothers?
Or do you just want a rationalization for killing all unborn humans?
Oh, btw, many of your fellow baby killers say that the unborn are a "part of the mother", so how can they have a parasitic relationship with themselves?
You're trying to reason with a blithering idiot.
But, it's nice to see his arguments blown out of the water anyway.

reply from: Hosea

Accordinmg to your definiation, the nursing baby is parasitic in relation with the mother. Shouldn't she have the right to kill her nursing baby.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Toddlers and babies depend on the mother, but not at her direct physical expense. And yes, pregnancy does compromise a woman's body, even when it's a healthy pregnancy. This is why I feel it should be a woman's decision whether to carry her pregnancy to term or not.

reply from: SuperGlide

A mother can rightly decide to end the life of her child if she finds supporting that life to be too great of a burden?

reply from: Hosea

Notice that this does not say unborn child. It is a slippery slope.

reply from: bozo

This statement does nothing to contribute to the discussion. Bozo has learned nothing from it except that the poster likes to call people nasty names. Bozo wants to learn. Does this poster have anything of value to say? If so, I beg her to please share it and no longer hide it.
BEEP BEEP

reply from: saucie

This statement does nothing to contribute to the discussion. Bozo has learned nothing from it except that the poster likes to call people nasty names. Bozo wants to learn. Does this poster have anything of value to say? If so, I beg her to please share it and no longer hide it.
BEEP BEEP
Bozo has gone off his rocker once and for all.
There's nothing you are capable of learning at this point.
Now go beep some place where they care......

reply from: sk1bianca

if a newborn baby cries, his mother's breasts will start leaking milk. if she doesn't take all the milk out, her breasts will become swollen and painful. some women have more milk than the baby can eat so they have to use a pump to get it out every few hours. it's a tough job and sometimes even painful.

reply from: SpitMcGee

A breast-feeding infant is not that same thing as a fetus that lives inside a woman's body, is attached to her uterine wall, and receives oxygen nutrients via her bloodstream. A breast-feeding infant gets milk from the mother's body, but it does not grow off her body.
I'm not saying that pregnancy is a bad thing. I'm saying that whether or not to give birth should be a woman's choice because the fetus lives in her body.

reply from: sk1bianca

when an infant sucks milk from his mother he is attached to his mother. breast-feeding can be sometimes be very painful. and if he is feeding, he IS growing!
comparing pregnancy to having a parasite inside your body really makes pregnancy look like a bad thing. and if it's sucks so bad having a fetus inside your uterus (which, by the way, is designed for this purpose), giving birth should be an even more happy event.
parasites (like tape-worms) ALWAYS damage the host's body and cause serious disease. they cannot live and will NEVER be able to live on their own. they are not the host's offspring. they didn't get inside the host's body because of an informed decision she made (the vast majority of people know that if they have sex a child might be conceived).
would you eat or touch anything if you knew you might get parasites?
but why am i even wasting my time?...

reply from: saucie

Very good reply, well said!
It wasn't wasting your time overall, even if it was wasted on any dolt that compares a child in the womb to a parasite or a body organ.
That's just how far some have sunk....they would have made good little nazis; since both proaborts and nazi's de-humanized a segment of humanity. They do have that in common and see no fault in ridding society of what they percieve to be the "unwanted".

reply from: yoda

Ask a nursing mother if there's any "expense".
Then go back and kill a few more babies.

reply from: yoda

And yours does?
ZIP IT UP, CLOWN!!

reply from: yoda

And that "difference" keeps the unborn from being members of our species?
How many babies do you think ought to be killed today?

reply from: SpitMcGee

By "direct physical expense", I don't mean discomfort or inconvenience. A fetus that lives inside the body of its mother is compromising her body and putting her at a fair degree of risk.
And when did I say that human fetuses aren't a member of our species? Of course they are. I don't see how it matters; if a member of the same species is living inside my body, I still have more rights than it does.

reply from: Hosea

That is discriminating against a whole group of people ( the unborn) because of place of residence. So is this discrimination ok? Unborn people lose thier right to life because of where they live.

reply from: Rawr

Prior to formula being invented, do you think it should have been morally and lawfully acceptable for a woman to refuse to allow her baby to breast-feed since she should have more rights than the parasitic-like human living off of her?

reply from: lukesmom

LOL! You've obviously never parented says all my grey hairs compliments of my teenagers. I felt very "physical expense" with all the sleepless nights and worry due to my little darlings, from their birth into their teenage years. You are fooling yourself if you think parenting doesn't have physical expenses that must be paid. Heck, being pregnant was easy in comparison.

reply from: lukesmom

So are my darlin teens. And yes, they are parasites living off my paycheck. Maybe we should have them terminated? Not a chance.

reply from: bozo

And yours does?
ZIP IT UP, CLOWN!!
ZIP IT UP????
I beg your pardon sir!
I am NOT a pornograhic clown!
I am a family clown, and I juggle with G-Rated balls.

reply from: yoda

Oh, it matters:
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

reply from: yoda

My fearless prediction: you will get NO answer.

reply from: saucie

Spoken like a good little nazi/slave owner.
You missed your eras. You've believed the lies that have de-humanized the child in the womb, just like previous peoples with a need for power.
How you people live with yourselves I'll never understand, but I do understand you come here to soothe that battled and scared conscience. It won't work, you won't change one single mind here and your conscience will still be scared long after this site ceases to exist. Don't say you weren't warned.

reply from: saucie

It doesn't matter how you dress it up....that idiot was comparing the baby in the womb to a "parasite", you miserable moron!
You should be so embrassed to show up here...when are you ever going to answer Mark? You're so owned...it's pathetic.

reply from: saucie

That "we" would consist of nothing but the lowest, vile creatures on earth: baby killing proaborts.
The day, the very day I gain one ounce of approval from any of you ,vile horrid creatures, is the day I take a long hard look at what I'm doing. Until then, shut the hell up.

reply from: Imaginary

Hmm. Cause there are laws against killing born babies, me thinks. Abortion is legalised, murder isn't.

reply from: SpitMcGee

That "place of residence" happens to be another human being's body. Just because a woman is sharing her body with a fetus doesn't mean that it stops being hers.
Unborn fetuses don't have a "right to life" (a better phrase would be "right to birth"). They don't have a right to anything. When you live in the body of someone else, that person's rights always trump yours. That should be common sense.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Please go back and read my previous posts; I don't feel like repeating myself a third time.

reply from: saucie

That "place of residence" happens to be another human being's body. Just because a woman is sharing her body with a fetus doesn't mean that it stops being hers.
Unborn fetuses don't have a "right to life" (a better phrase would be "right to birth"). They don't have a right to anything. When you live in the body of someone else, that person's rights always trump yours. That should be common sense.
Now killing babies in the womb is "common sense".
Good little nazi...good little nazi.
Listen, spit for brains...the women (unless raped) sent a gold engraved INVITATION to that child.
At least learn some basic biology before you go spouting off.

reply from: SpitMcGee

For the fourth time, a woman has more rights than a fetus that lives in her body. Breast-feeding children live outside her body.
If you have trouble seeing a difference, please read my previous posts.

reply from: Imaginary

I'd like to throw a question out here. A woman got pregnant. She decides to keep the baby. However, her boyfriend doesn't want the baby, and asks her to abort. She refuses, and he leaves her. Should he be allowed to leave? Or should he be forced to take up his responsibility? What role does he play in the pregnancy? As he did help create the fetus.
I'm just curious to opinions on this. For me, both parents are responsible, not just the girl/woman, and so both should cooperate to raise the child. However, I've seen many pro-lifers lay the blame solemly on the woman, so... I'm curious to what you all think.

reply from: leftsfoil

Here are some questions that will help you answer your questions, for yourself.
If two people decide to go swimming in a remote river somewhere and only one can swim, do they share the same risk?
Would it behoove more caution on the part of the swimmer or the non-swimmer?
If the swimmer and the non-swimmer had encouraged each other to take this plunge, is the swimmer to be held responsible when the non-swimmer drowns?
What do the courts say about accidental drownings?

reply from: Imaginary

So you lay the blame solely on the woman then?
Abortion for me plox. Like, right now. As you obviously don't care wether or not I get knocked up, and you do not care for me, I see no reason to care for that fetus YOU put in me. So - get it out!
More questions for you. Since you like swimming so much.
Your partner is drowning. Would you let them drown? Or would you do anything in your power to help them?
Also, where I come from, the good swimmer would be held responsible for the death of the bad swimmer. Consequences would follow. No clue how it is in the US (where I presume you're from...?).

reply from: leftsfoil

I never said that. Those are your words. But for you to pretend that all things are equal in this equation of responsibility is sophomoric and intentionally dishonest. By refusing to look at reality, you, and unfortunately many millions of pregnant women, are just plain being ignorantly self deceptive, to their own detriment. Fools all. Society knows of this special vulnerability that fertile women bare and has responded to it with strict rape laws. In more primitive cultures the blame for being raped is laid entirely at the feet of the woman as the obvious and the ultimately responsible person. Muslim culture has turned this completely back onto the one who suffers vulnerability the most. Just as a non-swimmer has total responsibility for not going into the deep end.
Understand this. I do not agree with Muslim practices, nor am I a supporter of irresponsible males tempting women towards danger for the sake of their own personal gratification.
My problem is with your inability to focus on the real problem behind abortion.. fornication out of wedlock. Stop this practice and all the other issues melt away. Unrealistic?.. says you.
Really? Where are you from?.. Dumbassylvania or Stinkinliarsnograd?

reply from: saucie

I never said that. Those are your words. But for you to pretend that all things are equal in this equation of responsibility is sophomoric and intentionally dishonest. By refusing to look at reality, you, and unfortunately many millions of pregnant women, are just plain being ignorantly self deceptive, to their own detriment. Fools all. Society knows of this special vulnerability that fertile women bare and has responded to it with strict rape laws. In more primitive cultures the blame for being raped is laid entirely at the feet of the woman as the obvious and the ultimately responsible person. Muslim culture has turned this completely back onto the one who suffers vulnerability the most. Just as a non-swimmer has total responsibility for not going into the deep end.
Understand this. I do not agree with Muslim practices, nor am I a supporter of irresponsible males tempting women towards danger for the sake of their own personal gratification.
My problem is with your inability to focus on the real problem behind abortion.. fornication out of wedlock. Stop this practice and all the other issues melt away. Unrealistic?.. says you.
Really? Where are you from?.. Dumbassylvania or Stinkinliarsnograd?
LOL! THAT'S FUNNY and I don't care who you are!
spitwad had to have been born in "Dumbassylvania" and grew up in "Stinkinliarsnograd"!

reply from: Hosea

That "place of residence" happens to be another human being's body. Just because a woman is sharing her body with a fetus doesn't mean that it stops being hers.
Unborn fetuses don't have a "right to life" (a better phrase would be "right to birth"). They don't have a right to anything. When you live in the body of someone else, that person's rights always trump yours. That should be common sense.
You are right according to our supreme court the unborn baby does not have the right to life. They have been wrong before as in Dred Scott and descisions can be reversed. That is why pro-lifes want pro-life people on the supreme court.
We have the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (things) and these rights are self evident (at least to most). They are stated in that order for a reason. If someone takes something of yours.... you cannot make them your slave because liberty( freedom) trumps the pursuit of happiness. If someone takes your ability to do something you want to do you can't kill them becasue life trumps liberty. The problem with abortion is that the woman's liberty trumps the baby's life. Laws need to reflect the proper order or rights, therefore giving the unborn child the right to life which supercedes the woman's right to liberty (freedom in living her life the way she wants for a few months).

reply from: leftsfoil

And the 95% of Americans who have sex outside of marriage.
But thanks for the laugh and good luck with that!
A total non-sequitur. First of all your statistics are ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated. Additionally, the fact that people have sex outside of marriage does not negate the wisdom of encouraging celibacy prior to marriage. Perhaps you were too giggly from your weed buzz to think it through clearly. Try thinking it through again after you sober up.

reply from: Rawr

For the fourth time, a woman has more rights than a fetus that lives in her body. Breast-feeding children live outside her body.
If you have trouble seeing a difference, please read my previous posts.
So what? It still depends on her body to survive. Is it not terrible to "force" a woman to let another human use her body against her will? Why should the needs of a human lacking sapience, and possibly even self-awareness, trump those of the woman?

reply from: Imaginary

I'm from Europe, thank you very much.
And, last time I checked, a woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. Now, following your thoughts, the child is more my responsibility than yours, right? Cause I'm more vulnerable, history states that, blahblah. But, following that train of thought, that makes me able to say what happens to it. So, if I decide to have an abortion, you can't stop me, cause you've just put me as being responsible for it, and thus I have to deal with the consequences. And one way of dealing with them, is by having an abortion.
And what about people (or more specifically, women) who don't want to get married? Should they just be a virgin for their entire life? Cause I know I have no desire whatsoever to get married, but I enjoy sex way too much to stop doing it.
@Rawr: Technically, it doesn't have to depend on her body anymore as there is formula now as well. But that's next to the point, I guess...

reply from: yoda

That's like saying "If you and I have a disagreement, one way of dealing with that is to kill you". True, but cold and crude.

reply from: saucie

Wrong.
Unless the baby can get up out of his crib, go to the cupboard, get his bottle, mix the formula, warm it up and feed it to himself....he most certainly is depending on his mother's body.
You just can't get around the FACT that all human babies are totally dependant on their mothers for years. You'll just have to face it...you need to find a different excuse for a mother to murder her very own son or daughter.

reply from: fetalisa

A quick read of the Constitution would clear up your ignorance on the above issues.

reply from: fetalisa

Those who disagree with abortion do not have to have them, which means no one else's values are imposed on the prolife. The prolife have the right to deny their own right to choice and refuse to exercise it, in the same way that some choose not to vote.

reply from: Hosea

A quick read of the Constitution would clear up your ignorance on the above issues.
According to our supreme court the unborn baby does not have the right to life. They have been wrong before as in Dred Scott and descisions can be reversed. That is why pro-lifes want pro-life people on the supreme court.
We have the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (things) and these rights are self evident (at least to most). They are stated in that order for a reason. If someone takes something of yours.... you cannot make them your slave because liberty( freedom) trumps the pursuit of happiness. If someone takes your ability to do something you want to do you can't kill them becasue life trumps liberty. The problem with abortion is that the woman's liberty trumps the baby's life. Laws need to reflect the proper order or rights, therefore giving the unborn child the right to life which supercedes the woman's right to liberty (freedom in living her life the way she wants for a few months).

reply from: fetalisa

It is indisputable, verifiable FACT that babies do indeed have a right to life. ZEFs, however, are another story. Of course, as soon as the prolife produce a ZEF capable of participating in constitutional rights such as free speech or religion, our courts might have reason to consider them persons.
1. Slaves do not inhabit the body of another as ZEFs do, which means you need an analogy that is actually relevant.
2. Even slaves were recognized as partial persons (3/5 to be exact) in the Constitution, for purposes of the census.
Stacking the court with prolifers will not produce a precedent in the history of our law which deems the unborn to be persons. Stacking the courts also will not change the fact the authors of neither the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment could have any intention whatsoever to address the unborn.
And if you need the use of my bodily resources to prevent your own death, you have no right WHATSOEVER to forcibly use my bodily resources without MY CONSENT. If you could do so, that would trump my RIGHTS OF LIBERTY. And if you did require my bodily resources to continue living, but I refused my bodily resources to be available to you and you died as a result, not a soul in your family would have standing to sue me for murder, BECAUSE YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO THE USE OF MY BODY TO BEGIN WITH! And EVERY WORD OF THE ABOVE APPLIES IN THE CASE OF A ZEF WHO NEEDS A UTERUS TO CONTINUE LIVING!
In other words, this idea of yours that one's 'right to life' trumps another's 'right to liberty' exists only as a fantasy in your head, because my right to liberty trumps your right to life, even if it means you will die without my kidney.
The problem with your BS argument is a ZEF has no more right to utilize the bodily resources of a woman for 9 months without CONSENT, than you have the right to utilize my bodily resources to halt your own death, without MY CONSENT. The problem with your argument is you claim a ZEF should have a right that even the born do not possess and you offer no justification whatsoever as to how forced organ donation is moral OR beneficial to society, regardless of whether the recipient be born or not.
Why give the ZEF a right that neither you nor I possess? Even if you will die without my bodily resources, your right to life does not trump MY right to liberty. Until and unless the prolife posits an argument in favor of forced organ donation to another without consent, our laws will NEVER change.

reply from: fetalisa

Honestly, I tire of replying to the same fallacy. Your argument, like all of the prolife, is always the same. Well if you can kill a ZEF, what could stop you from killing a two year old. Have you forgotten about the Constitution? Have you forgotten the constitutional 'right to life' is recognized at birth? Have you forgotten that none in their right mind have argued that it should be legal to kill the born at any point after birth, not 35 years after Roe in this country, nor in any other western democracy where abortion is legal?
Oh wait. You are well aware of all of these FACTS, you just CHOOSE to ignore them to create a diversion. Not only is it old to respond to such mindless diversions, it's totally pointless.
You miss the point every time and I can not determine if it is intentional or not. A ZEF has no guaranteed right to use a woman's body to continue surviving without her CONSENT, no more than you have a guaranteed right to use my body to continue your own survival without my CONSENT. Your right to life does not trump my rights to liberty. Neither does a ZEF's, even if the ZEF DID have a right to life.

reply from: fetalisa

Like I said, you only give more absurd diversion. Cite a law, or perhaps a suggested bill that was tabled, wherein Singer's ideas were put before Congress. Oh, that's right. You can't, because Singer is a whacko so far out there no one takes him seriously and none in their right mind WOULD take him seriously and even if they did pass such a bill, it would be struck down as unconstitutional since constitutional rights are recognized at birth.
Tell me why it is perfectly legal for me to drink diet sodas and coffee all day long when the mormons believe it is wrong?
Sure concernedparent, as long as one is enough of an imbecile to pretend the constitution and laws against murder don't exist. I will not respond to your pointless attention whoring any further. Be relevant and accept the present realities of our law and our society if you really would care for me to respond to your posts ever again.

reply from: fetalisa

That's certainly what you PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.
Oh look! Feigned indignance from the prolife. How utterly new.
Whatever.

reply from: Hosea

Lisa,
You keep calling the baby a Zef. It is a baby. It does not magically change at birth to a human being. The is no magic there at birth.
You demonstrate the exact problem with society and reversal of the order of the fundimental rights. A mother cannot kill a nursing baby because it depends on her for food and cannot use the freedom of speech to make hi/her case. She can choose to not nurse and place the baby for adoption as soon as possible. She cannot choose to dismember her baby because she does not want it.
An unborn baby feeds upon his mother and she can place him for adoption as soon as posible/viable. She has no right to dismember the baby. You are defending dismembering babies. That is why you are so defensive. How else can you be you must fight and tell yourself lies to sleep at night. You can defend women without destroying the chid. Do you know about Feminists for Life. They are a great organization. You can Love them both.

reply from: fetalisa

Abortion kills either of a zygote, embryo or fetus. Abortion doesn't kill a baby. Babies have constitutional rights. ZEFs do not.
Feel free to look up the words 'zygote,' embryo' or 'fetus' in any dictionary should you doubt what I have typed here. And of course a ZEFs don't turn into human beings at birth. They are fully recognized persons at birth and not before.
Really? Then why can't you produce any evidence where a ZEF has participated in constitutional rights as people do, such as the exercise of free speech or religion?
Nope. Sorry, but the error is yours. Even though you might need my kidney and will die without it, you have no right whatsoever to use or take my kidney without my CONSENT. Your right to life does not trump my right to liberty. The same is true of ZEFs.
And the baby can not take or use the mother's bone marrow to treat the baby's bone cancer without the CONSENT of the mother. The same is true of ZEFs.
Irrelevant. Abortion kills ZEFs not babies.
Your ignorance of the differences between ZEFs and babies does not say anything at all about me.
It's not necessary for me to be defensive when the errors in your logic are so blatantly obvious.
Nope. Sorry. You are wrong and completely so. You have no more right to take and use my kidney without my CONSENT, than a ZEF has a right to use or take a uterus without the woman's CONSENT. Forced organ donation does not exist without or law. So I suggest you go back to whoever it was that told you this nonsense and ask them why they lied to you.
There is no such thing. A feminist would never willingly give up reproductive freedoms. Any feminists who claim to do so are not feminists and really need to quit lying to others.
You can worship mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons all you wish. My concern is for the REAL people in the pregnancy, which are the women.

reply from: Rawr

Zygote, embryo and fetus are all terms to describe the stage of a developing human life, as are neonate, infant, toddler, child, etc. To say its okay to kill a human life based on what term you call it is moronic. Newborns are often called neonates in medical context. Guess that makes them all right to kill. Its not my fault you choose to use the more emotional term, baby, to refer to neonates.
Well, I looked up those words and nothing in the dictionary stated whether they were or were not persons.
Neonates do not participate in those activities either.
Say a woman is snowed in somewhere and cannot leave to buy formula, or she simply doesn't want to (why should the woman have to be inconvenienced?) and has a nursing baby. If she decides she doesn't want ot breast-feed anymore, shouldn't she be able to starve the neonate?
Or do yout think the woman should be forced to have a neonate she doesn't want feed from her breasts?
I couldn't just go up to some woman and breast-feed, so why can the neonate do so without her consent? Are you anti-choice? Do you care more about a creature lacking sapience than you do about women?
People believe neonates are non-sentient, mindless and non-persons as well. You should read up about Peter Singer and Steven Pinker. Their views are 100% consistent and logical with the pro-choice mindset.
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/infanticide.html

Also, the Constitution says nothing about abortion. I am confused why you keep bringing it up.
And since you believe a human life is free to kill until its born, do you think partial birth abortions are fine and dandy?

reply from: fetalisa

What is moronic is to claim abortion is some terrible heinous would be crime, when you can't even describe the harm it causes, beyond killing a mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious non-person, while failing to mention we do not criminalize the killing of mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons, like heads of cabbages, because no harm results from doing so.
If you need my kidney and will die without it, but I refuse to give up my kidney to you, such that you die as a result, I have not, in fact, killed you. Nor can any of your family sue me for killing you, because you had NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to my kidney, nor any other part of my body, nor do I have any legal obligation WHATSOEVER to donate my bodily resources to you so that you may continue living.
In other words, YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE STOPS AT THE POINT WHERE MY RIGHT TO LIBERTY BEGINS.
The same is true with ZEFs. SO WHY DON'T YOU FACE AND DEAL WITH THAT LEGAL REALITY?
Nor did the definitions label ZEFs as babies.
The only reason a baby cries when it needs something is because it is SENTIENT, JUST LIKE PERSONS ARE. When a baby cries it is COMMUNICATING that it needs something, much like SPEECH. In case you think babies can't participate in constitutional rights such as religion, then look up the word 'bris' in a dictionary, which, without the baby, can not occur.
What in the hell does this have to do with abortion? Both the mother and the baby are persons. Abortion kills ZEFs, which VERY CLEARLY are not persons.
If she doesn't want a child she will abort it prior to birth. See how simple that is?
It doesn't do it without her consent. Do you even think about the stupidity you have typed here before you post it? How does a baby which can not crawl OR walk get anywhere near her breast unless she picks the baby up and puts it near/on her breast?
I care about the REAL person, which is the mother if the choice is between mother and ZEF. In the case of a burning building which has a 5 year old child and a case with 50 embryos or fetuses in it, I save the 5 year old, you know, the REAL person.
It matters not what people 'believe' once a baby is born. A newborn is a person with constitutional rights. It is illegal to kill them at that point. I would also be curious to know what evidence you have to prove newborns lack sentience or minds.
Don't post such garbage when you know good and well the prochoice do not respect the views of these nutjobs.
The question is. who does the Constitution address? Does it address persons or does it address ZEFs? We already know the answer to that question, which is why we know ZEFs aren't persons.
I do not respond to lies like the one you posted above.
There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. If your question relates to D & X, I support it 100%.

reply from: Rawr

What exactly do you mean by harm? Abortion causes the fetus harm, since it kills it. And after 8 weeks it can feel pain, something that a cabbage cannot even feel.
Do you think it'd be okay to terminate a family-less hobo via sniper shot to the head since no one else would care and he wouldn't feel pain?
So, should it be morally and legally okay to neglect children since no other organism has a right to make someone use their body against their will?
If I don't want to use my body and physically get up and fix my baby a bottle or buy food for my kid, that should be perfectly fine, right? They have no right to force me to use my legs, or hands or any other body part. If they die, I didn't kill them.
It also has "unborn child" as a definition for fetus.
Newborn babies cry because it is an instinct. According to your logic, crickets are sentient because they chirp. Plants also can release chemical "distress" signals when being eaten/under attack to "communicate" to other plants. Are plants sentient too? Cells "communicate" too. Are cells sentient?
Animal sacrifice cannot happen without an animal. Does that mean animals participate in religion?
If I take a grasshopper to church, does that mean it participates in religion?
Also, fetuses can cry in the womb.
http://dsc.discovery.c...ws/.....gvideo.html
"><br ">http://dsc.discovery.com/news/media/fetalcryingvideo.html
<br ">http://.....ws/...gvideo.html
Unless you believe a fetus just magically becomes able to cry when its head pops out of a vagina and is not capable of it before then.
So you believe in forcing women against their will to have parasitic neonates suckle from their breasts without their consent? I thought women had rights over how their bodies are used.
Did you not say earlier abortion is okay since one human life cannot live off the body parts of another without their consent?
"If you need my kidney and will die without it, but I refuse to give up my kidney to you, such that you die as a result, I have not, in fact, killed you. Nor can any of your family sue me for killing you, because you had NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to my kidney, nor any other part of my body, nor do I have any legal obligation WHATSOEVER to donate my bodily resources to you so that you may continue living."
Do you read before you post?
"Say a woman is snowed in somewhere and cannot leave to buy formula, or she simply doesn't want to (why should the woman have to be inconvenienced?) and has a nursing baby. If she decides she doesn't want ot breast-feed anymore, shouldn't she be able to starve the neonate?"
If such a situation were to ever happen, the woman should have the right to starve the neonate, correct?
What if in the building there was a 5-year-old child and a mentally disabled neonate that the parents don't really care about. Which would you save? If you would save the 5-year-old, does that mean the other human life is not "REAL" and therefore is all right to purposefully kill out of convenience?
They're not nutjobs. You are just close-minded and anti-choice about certain things. You want to force your beliefs on others.
It would not effect you if someone has their unwanted neonate euthanized at the hospital or gives it up for scientific experimentation to develop cures to save wanted and sapient human beings.
And do you think you speak for every single Pro-Choice person out there?
Peter Singer also gets paid a lot of money to attend places and do speeches, which shows people out there do respect him.
I could just as easily say it is not addressing unwanted neonates. The Constituion offers no definition for "personhood."
And since when has the Constitution defined morality and science? If the Constitution said colored people aren't persons, would that be a "fact"?

So you think a woman should be able to abort a late term fetus out of convenience?
Also, science can't biologically determine personhood; it is a philosophical question. There is no scientific criteria for personhood. To say its some sort of scientfic "fact" that a fetus isn't a person is false.

reply from: fetalisa

We do not criminalize the killing of mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs.
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain
http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/our_team/anesthesiologists.asp
1. Professor and Vice Chairman of Anesthesia,
2. Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences,
3. Director of Obstetrical Anesthesia and
3. Director of the Anesthesia Residency Training Program at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).
4. graduated magna cum laude from the University of California Davis in both Zoology and Genetics, and magna cum laude from the UCSF School of Medicine.
5. completed training in anesthesia and fellowship training in obstetrical anesthesia at UCSF (board certified), and has been a faculty member at UCSF since 1981.
Irrelevant. We are discussing abortion, not murder here.
Irrelevant. We are discussing ZEFs here, not children.
If I need your kidney and will die without it, do I have ANY LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO USE OR TAKE YOUR KIDNEY WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT?
YES OR NO?
The legal rights of unborn 'children' and children are drastically different. I do not debate abortion while ignoring legal realities.
Neither of ZEFs, crickets, plants are entitled to constitutional rights, because it is physically impossible for any of them to participate in constitutional rights in any meaningful way. Newborns CAN participate in constitutional rights, in however a rudimentary way. This means constitutional rights apply to newborns, but not to ZEFs, crickets or plants. In other words, the INTENT of the constitution proves who it addresses.
The constitution does not address animals, which is why constitutional rights do not apply to animals.

The constitutiona does not address grasshoppers, which is why constitutional rights do not apply to them.
Do not post nonsense with links which lead to nowhere. If you assert fetuses can cry in the womb but have no evidence to back it up, your claim is dismissed.
Provide a post # and direct quote where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the above claim withdrawn due to falsehood.
You are free to scroll up and read my posts to clear up your own confusion.
I will not response to over the top hypotheticals that will never occur in reality, or if they did occur in reality, would lead to someone being jailed for child abuse. If you are too ignorant to know such actions are illegal based on our present law, you need to find someone else's posts to respond to.
Only an utter imbecile would pose such an absurd question.
What if monkeys were to fly out of my behind tomoorw? I have alreadly made myself clear on this issue. You are free to scroll up and read my posts to clear up your own confusion.
They most certainly ARE nutjobs and you well know it. If the only way you have to argue your position is that these nutjobs 'perflecty reflect the prochoice view' then the prolife are indeed doomed in this country.
At no point have I ever argued the prolife should be forced into abortions. In what way do you think lies serve your side?
Murder is illegal. I do not debate abortion while ignoring present legal realities. If you wish to debate abortion in that manner, you need to find someone else to debate.
Provide a post number & direct quote where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the above question unnecessary to answer.
Provide a single instance where his views were adopted into a bill in Congress, even one that was tabled, or accept the fact I will not discuss the views of this whackjob, which are immaterial to this debate anyway.
Whatever you say does not alter the LEGAL FACT that constitutional rights are recognized at birth. I do not debate abortion while ignoring present legal facts. If you wish to debate abortion while ignoring present legal realities you need to find someone else to debate.
It most certainly does, by using the word 'person' or 'persons' a total of 48 times. One can easily derive the meaning of these words as used in the Constitution by viewing the context in which the words are used.
If the only way you can discuss abortion is by tossing the Constitution in the trash, then that tells me much about the legality of your views and how those views will play out in the courts. If you wish to discuss abortion while ignoring present legal realities, then you need to find someone esle to discuss these issues with.
The Constitution recognized the personhood of slaves, at least partially (3/5) for purposes of the census.
You are free to scroll up and read what I ACTUALLY POSTED, rather than pulling random nonsense out of your behind while pretending I actually posted the random nonsense you made up.
Sentience is often noted as a hallmark of personhood. We can know scientifically whether sentience does or does not exist, even though we might not be able to state the exact moment sentience springs into existence. We can know the lower boundary before which sentience can not exist.
Provide a post number and direct quote where I have ever claimed it is scientific fact a fetus isn't a person or I will consider the above claim withdrawn due to falsehood.

reply from: Hosea

FEtal Lisa
How many abortions have you had?
Do you feel this need to justify yourself through semantics?

reply from: fetalisa

Oh yeah. I most certainly feel the need to justify myself due to having zero abortions in my life, having zero instances of talking someone into abortion in my life and having zero instances of talking someone out of abortion in my life.
If someone came to me pregnant and didn't know what to do, I would not sway them towards or away from any possible option, because to do so would be egotistical, in that I would be attempting to enforce MY views on them. I would sit and listen, as they processed their situation, until the came up with whatever option they determined was best for themselves.

reply from: fetalisa

I totally support our abortion law as it is presently written, except for absurd restrictions like waiting periods or required viewing of ultrasounds and similar pointless measures and I am also completely against the D & X ban. I look forward to the passage of FOCA.

reply from: Hosea

I never said or inferred that you talked to any one about their choices in pregnancy. I just thought that maybe you had lost a baby to abortion. That is great that you have not had to lose a baby through abortion. Have you ever lost a baby through miscarriage or stillbirth? I have. I did not lose a zef. I went through labor and delivery to deliver a dead baby not a zef.
Adult, teenager, child, toddler, infant, fetus and embryo are all stages of life. Not the definition of life
I know women who had abortions and said the baby was a baby the next week but that it was not a baby the week earlier because that is when they haad there abortion. I was just thinking that maybe that you had an abortion in the third trimester and that is why you can't call the unborn baby a baby.

reply from: fetalisa

Why? Because I KNOW pregnancy does not make a woman's right of bodily autonomy magically disappear? And by the way, one doesn't lose a 'baby' to abortion. Abortion kills ZEFs.
It would be just as great if I had.
Well of course you had a baby. If you 'deliver' what is delivered is a baby, not a ZEF.
That doesn't change the LEGAL FACT a ZEF is not a baby.
I do not discuss abortion while ignoring present legal reality. The legal reality is that mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons in the form of ZEFs or heads of cabbages can be killed. However, babies can not be killed. So I am very careful in my use of terms, so that no confusion as to what I mean can result.
Otherwise, I would have IMBECILES claiming I support killing babies, when I very clearly do not.

reply from: Hosea

Fetal Lisa
I am trying to wrap my mind around your "view" of abortion. Of course, you are interested in the woman and I too am interested in the mother. So are you only concerned about the present legal status of the child in the womb. Are you not interested about the biological status of the baby immediately prior to being born vs immediately after he/she is born?
Is the baby who is killed by abortion a zef while in the womb but a dead baby after being taken out of the womb?
I really want to understand what you are thinking.

reply from: fetalisa

Of course I am. That's how I know it is scientific FACT sentience can not exist prior to the 28th week of gestation.
Abortion doesn't kill a baby. Abortion kills a ZEF;
zygote - http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=zygote
embryo -http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm2 : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
fetus - http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=fetus
The definitions posted above should clear up any confusion you may have. You know, you could easily have looked these definitions up yourself.

reply from: Rosalie

Not day after her. The second the baby gets cut off the woman's bodily resources, i.e. when the cord is cut and the baby is capable of surviving without being directly hooked up to a particular person.
Which part of this is unclear to you?
You are horribly uneducated and/or ignorant.
Can babies be fed formula by ANYONE or are they physically dependent on one particular person? Can you even answer that?
Wrong. We don't consider the baby more important than the woman and her health.
Once you secure a 100% reliable, affordable birth control and people who are educated about this, and when you remove all risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, there will be no need for abortions.
Off topic: I find clowns creepy. Don't you?

reply from: saucie

As creepy as this clown gets....he's a far sight better then you and your creep friend, the nazi wannabe...oh wait, I forgot...you wanted to grow up to be a nazi too....tsk, tsk, you'll just have to satisfy your craving for power over the helpless with dead children from the womb. That is, until America finishes waking up and rids it's self of bad law.

reply from: fetalisa

The only nazis here are those who would strip a woman of her right of bodily autonomy simply because she DARED to have sex (yet somehow allow the man who impregnated her to keep HIS right of bodily autonomy).

reply from: Banned Member

A woman has no right to choose abortion.

reply from: fetalisa

I do not doubt that's what you PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.
However, none in our society are obligated to live their lives by what you PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, aside from yourself.

reply from: Rosalie

Your ignorance is not even amusing. It's just sad and offensive to anyone with Jewish heritage. But I don't think anyone would expect any better from an uneducated, misogynistic hick.

reply from: Rosalie

Your opinion does not matter to anyone but you. And you, you poor little deranged virgin, are absolutely insignificant.

reply from: fetalisa

That's what ticks the prolife off so badly. It's no longer the Dark Ages so not only can not they cram their hair-brained, batsh1t crazy morality down our throats, they can't even burn us at the stake anymore for daring to hold an alternate opinion.

reply from: saucie

You're the one "ticked off" to the point where you can't break away from the computer....projection must be the only way of life you know.
But, I still don't feel sorry for such a vile, loathesome piece of........what hung from spitwads arse this morning.

reply from: fetalisa

Maybe one day you will be able to construct a coherent argument, and be able to graduate from grade school name-calling.

reply from: Hosea

Originally posted by: Hosea
Are you not interested about the biological status of the baby immediately prior to being born vs immediately after he/she is born?.
Posted by Fetal Lisa Of course I am. That's how I know it is scientific FACT sentience can not exist prior to the 28th week of gestation.
Actually babies have survived from as early as 22 weeks.
So according to you, is it a baby after viability, or in the third trimester, or just after birth?

reply from: fetalisa

PROOF?
fetus - http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=fetus

reply from: sk1bianca

Amilia Taylor, Will Goddard, Millie McDonagh, Madalyn Marie Hayden.

reply from: Hosea

I know a fetus is an unborn baby from 8 weeks until birth.
Answer when is it a baby? Does something magical happen at birth?

reply from: saucie

Your ignorance is not even amusing. It's just sad and offensive to anyone with Jewish heritage. But I don't think anyone would expect any better from an uneducated, misogynistic hick.
Listen you, foul little guttersnipe....I'm Jewish.
I know exactly what I'm saying from the experience of having lost family members to the mindset YOU possess.
So shut the hell up.

reply from: lukesmom

LONDON (Reuters) - Liz Goddard's son Will, now a thriving 10-year-old, was born in 1998 just 22 weeks and 3 days after conception. She believes he is the most premature baby to have survived in Britain.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2272447220080425

At 18 months old, Amillia Taylor is already entering the terrible twos.
When life doesn't go her way, she stamps her little foot, pushes out her lower lip and makes her demands with a sweet baby lisp.
She is, her parents say with a smile, a 'proper little madam'. But it's a fighting spirit which has served Amillia well.
Because this bright, beguiling toddler was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation - a whole two weeks before the existing abortion cut-off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

reply from: Hosea

Hi Sue,
Thanks for looking up the proof for me.
BTW we have our second foster baby. She came straight from the hospital at two days old. She is now two months old.

reply from: lukesmom

How wonderful! I bet she is beautiful. Give her a kiss from me.
Sue

reply from: nancyu

Your ignorance is not even amusing. It's just sad and offensive to anyone with Jewish heritage. But I don't think anyone would expect any better from an uneducated, misogynistic hick.
Listen you, foul little guttersnipe....I'm Jewish.
I know exactly what I'm saying from the experience of having lost family members to the mindset YOU possess.
So shut the hell up.
Don't you just LOVE (no) the people who claim to have a handle on what should be considered offensive for an entire community of people.
Me neither. Rosalie -- another pretty face with a head stuffed with cabbage.

reply from: saucie

Your ignorance is not even amusing. It's just sad and offensive to anyone with Jewish heritage. But I don't think anyone would expect any better from an uneducated, misogynistic hick.
Listen you, foul little guttersnipe....I'm Jewish.
I know exactly what I'm saying from the experience of having lost family members to the mindset YOU possess.
So shut the hell up.
Don't you just LOVE (no) the people who claim to have a handle on what should be considered offensive for an entire community of people.
Me neither. Rosalie -- another pretty face with a head stuffed with cabbage.
They must speak for everyone, they must act like they even know what level of education others possess...if not, they then have to face the fact they harbor murder in their dead hearts and souls. They would have to face the FACT they are NO better than the mindset that has been a part of history since history began; the mindset that can believe and act upon the lie that there are segments of humanity that are worthless and sub-human.
They're no better, no different than nazi's/slave owners/tyrants thru the ages.

reply from: sk1bianca

any doctor will tell you that breast-feeding is the best and healthiest start for a baby. and you would be surprised how many women in this world have no access or simply cannot afford to buy formula for the baby.
why don't you face the fact that many people agree with abortion just because it's legal and "if it's legal, it must be ok"? maybe you're not that stupid, but a lot of people are...

reply from: SpitMcGee

Do breast-feeding infants live inside their mother's body? Do they grow off her uterine wall? Do they share her circulation?
Can breast-feeding lead to dangerous conditions like gestational diabetes, eclampsia, toxemia, and placenta previa?
Does breast-feeding an infant cause nausea, heartburn, swelling, varicose veins, organ compression, hemorrhoids, urinary incontinence, constipation, and (often severe) pain?
After birth, an infant has its own established circulation and no longer grows off the body of another. This is what gives the infant human rights.
Because infants receive milk from the body of their mothers, it can be said that they still depend on her body for survival; however, this isn't the same as pregnancy. A breast-feeding infant does not grow off it's mother's body; it is physically separate from her.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

reply from: saucie

Ever heard of infected milk ducts? Untreated can lead to dire consequenses.
Do you not even realize that a woman's body was made to carry a child?
You make pregnancy sound like a disease and women incapable beings.
We're not...we can work, learn, love, gain, loose, and carry the future in our bodies.
We're amazing creatures, we're capable and able....mr. spit, you make a mockery of woman hood and poor excuses for a woman to murder her own child.

reply from: Rawr

fetalisa
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/FuseTalk/Forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=7563&enterthread=y&STARTPAGE=4

In reply to concernedparent, you state you believe a third trimester fetus is not a person. Is this based on your own personal view or scientific fact?
What I'm seeing from this thread is basically the pro-choice argument boils down to "its legal, so its okay" or something along the lines of "it magically becomes a being worth protecting when it pops out of a vagina."
Is that about right?
Everytime you point out an inconsistency in their stance/logic and how it could be used to justify other atrocities, it turns out it turns out they didn't really care about whatever they just said and are still for abortion for some other reason, until it ultimately comes down to "because its legal."
Fetalisa for example says its not okay to kill newborns because they cry, which she thinks proves they are sentient, as to her communication = sentience. Obviously it does not, unless you also believe crickets, plants and cells are sentient.
So a newborn and a late term fetus are probably equal on the sentience scale. Fetalisa is still against killing unwanted newborns, even even though they are equally as "mindless" as a late term fetus. Yet one of her reasons for abortion being okay is because it kills a non-sentient,"mindless" unwanted organism. Why is it okay to kill one unwanted, non-sentient, "mindless" human organism and not the other?
Obviously, fetalisa doesn't care whether a ZEF, fetus or newborn is sentient or not in regards to killing it, otherwise she wouldn't be against elective late term abortion, as a late term fetus is also "mindless" and not sentient.
Since also says abortion is okay because no parasitic organism has the right to live inside the mother if she doesn't want it to. Yet she is all for imposing restrictions (omg she wants to control a woman's uterus!11) on late term abortions.
I also like how no one will directly answer the starving baby scenario. Obviously, if a woman truly does have complete autonomy over her body and no other "parasitic" organism has a right to use her for its own nourishment against her will, then, yes, she should be morally and legally okay for her to starve it.

reply from: nancyu

It would never be morally acceptable to willfully allow a child to starve to death. Legally though? Judging by our current laws -if you can even call them laws- probably would be.

reply from: leftsfoil

And here I thought it was God, (as reaffirmed by the Constitution of the United States), that gave us human rights.. sure glad you straightened that one out.. NOT!
Hey Spit, can I call you Spit?.. you seem very familiar to me. Did you play the Banjo in the movie Deliverance?

reply from: saucie

Wow...who knew...."circulation" gives us human rights!
What'll they think of next, dexter?????? (rolls eyes in disgust)

reply from: Hosea

Do you have any knowledge at all about fetal develpoment. The baby gets food and oxygen from the mother in the placenta. The baby does not share blood witht the mother. The baby has a beating heart at 21 days. The baby has its own circulatory system and it's own blood type. If the blood types mix the mother can die. That is why expectant mothers who are RH- have to have a shot just incase the blood may mix. There goes another uneducated arguement.

reply from: speck

Your ignorance is not even amusing. It's just sad and offensive to anyone with Jewish heritage. But I don't think anyone would expect any better from an uneducated, misogynistic hick.
Listen you, foul little guttersnipe....I'm Jewish.
I know exactly what I'm saying from the experience of having lost family members to the mindset YOU possess.
So shut the hell up.
Don't you just LOVE (no) the people who claim to have a handle on what should be considered offensive for an entire community of people.
Me neither. Rosalie -- another pretty face with a head stuffed with cabbage.
Pot kettle black.

reply from: saucie

Your ignorance is not even amusing. It's just sad and offensive to anyone with Jewish heritage. But I don't think anyone would expect any better from an uneducated, misogynistic hick.
Listen you, foul little guttersnipe....I'm Jewish.
I know exactly what I'm saying from the experience of having lost family members to the mindset YOU possess.
So shut the hell up.
Don't you just LOVE (no) the people who claim to have a handle on what should be considered offensive for an entire community of people.
Me neither. Rosalie -- another pretty face with a head stuffed with cabbage.
Pot kettle black.
Stupid idiot stupid.

reply from: Hosea

Do you have any knowledge at all about fetal develpoment. The baby gets food and oxygen from the mother in the placenta. The baby does not share blood witht the mother. The baby has a beating heart at 21 days. The baby has its own circulatory system and it's own blood type. If the blood types mix the mother can die. That is why expectant mothers who are RH- have to have a shot just incase the blood may mix. There goes another uneducated arguement.

reply from: sweet

it is soooo simple. i think proAborts choose to ignore the hard facts. it IS a baby. Abortion IS murder.

reply from: saucie

Summed up perfectly well.
Trouble is, the proaborts cannot admit the above FACTS since then they have to face themselves as murderers...and not just your garden variety murderer, oh no...a CHILD murderer no less!!

reply from: BossMomma

Hell we had a poster who stated that it was not immoral to kill a newborn on the grounds of sentience. Remember JHR?


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