Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seeing as no baby is being murdered, your post starts off with a false premise. And anything that follows is based on that false premise is nothing but one long FALLACIOUS argument.
You still can't tell the difference between an embryo and a living breathing human being, I see.
Nice job completely avoiding the rest of my post. What I actually said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Hurray!! Now we can change the name of an opinion to provoke an emotionally charged response!! Yay!!
The problem with pro-baby-murder supporters like yourself is pretty simple: They've fallen for the same con-job that has been used to do terrible things to "less human" people for all human history. In order to decrease immoral extra-marital affairs between wealthy Roman aristocrats, the Roman emperors encouraged folks to go rape their slaves instead. Apparently, it's not immoral because a slave is something less than human. There have been countless genocidal events in human history based on the notion that "some humans aren't really human." "Some people don't have any rights and deserve to die for the common good." To this very day, Chinese parents continue to murder baby girls for being baby girls. This practice is by no means limited to China. It happens all over the world. Since we can't stop it, should we legalize that too?
In 1900, abortion was considered morally reprehensible. So was mass-murder. The Jewish Holocaust happened because an entire group of people let themselves be talked into the lie that "Jews are not human beings." They came up with nice dehumanizing names for Jews in Nazi Germany. The ongoing Abortion Holocaust has claimed 55 million victims and counting because people let themselves be talked into the idea that an unborn baby isn't human. They too came up with some nice dehumanizing names for unborn children.
It's the same con-job. It's just a different human demographic getting massacred this time.
Go back 120 years and abortion was almost universally considered amoral, detestable and exactly the same thing as infanticide by the vast majority of human beings. Sure it still happened. So did murder of adults and babies and everything inbetween. But it was not socially acceptable to abort a baby.
You keep harping on "it's not a person." Hitler did that too. "Jews aren't people. They aren't humans." He called them devils and demons and satan worshipers and things like that. Words calculated to engender hate and disdain. Words to help dull the natural human response of horror and outrage when witnessing murder.
You've simply fallen for the same con-job. Seriously, what's the difference? We're just dehumanizing on the basis of age instead of religion/ethnicity this time around. It's just a different chunk of the same human race that propagandists are dehumanizing.
Don't believe me? Try this science experiment: Take 100 women who are 3 months pregnant. How often do you think the "non-human" growing inside them will become a "bonafide real human" over the next 6 months? While your at it, let's extend the experiment another 10 years so we can ask the resulting human if they'd mind if they had been aborted and whether this would affect them in any way.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 09-05-2013 at 03:04 PM..
Abortion is taking responsibility for your actions in the same sense that a gangster covering up his own crime by having a witness killed is taking responsibility by cleaning up his own mess.
Anyway, serious question- at one point, you have a sperm fertilizing an egg, which is unambiguously not a person. At another point you have a baby, which is unambiguously a person. Where do you draw a line between non-person and person, and why? At birth? Is a newborn infant morally different than it was before it passed through the birth canal, a couple of hours earlier?
At viability? How can we draw a line there? It's different for everyone and it doesn't happen all at once. Even if you can tell with any certainty whether a particular fetus is viable at any given point during the usual time frame, should we count Fetus A as a person at 24 weeks because he became viable in week 23, while Fetus B isn’t a person because she won't become viable until week 25
The same problem applies to the historical legal standards- the quickening (anywhere from 15 to 20 weeks, which is otherwise a defective standard the extent that it relies on the subjective evidence of feeling the fetus moving) or formation of the fetus (week 9). Prenatal development is a continuum, and varies from pregnancy to pregnancy. The only discernible “events” that occur before birth are fertilization, the first cell division, and maybe the implantation of the zygote. Anything in between those events and birth is pretty much arbitrary. A zygote may be less a person than an infant, but it’s fundamentally different from the sperm and egg that preceded it.
Incidentally, with respect to historical legal standards, if I understand correctly, the quickening/formation of the fetus standards were where the line was drawn at different times between a misdemeanor and a felony, specifically, homicide or manslaughter, so while it might be legally inaccurate to call abortion “murder,” calling anything after a certain point “homicide” or is entirely fair. It’s just a legal form of homicide, like killing someone in self-defense… at least according to the US Supreme Court.
Since every one of the other abortion thread have gotten shut down, let me ask the question on this one... Let's say life begins at conception and life is sacred. Why is it ok to kill animals and eat them??? I still have yet to hear a pro lifer answer me this one. (Hurry, the moderators will probably shut down this thread too)
Since every one of the other abortion thread have gotten shut down, let me ask the question on this one... Let's say life begins at conception and life is sacred. Why is it ok to kill animals and eat them??? I still have yet to hear a pro lifer answer me this one. (Hurry, the moderators will probably shut down this thread too)
Many conservatives are vegetarians actually.
But you're point is kind of ridiculous. Animals are not humans. How about comparing apples to apples? Example: It's not legal to kill humans and eat them and making it legal would be really bad. That sort of thing.
Everyone loves people who take responsibility and aren't a drain on them or society. But let them find out that nice lady down the street had an abortion once (never mind why or when) and suddenly OMG she's a murderer!!!!
It's especially fun when it's a family member or close friend, then the mind bending really starts.
Since every one of the other abortion thread have gotten shut down, let me ask the question on this one... Let's say life begins at conception and life is sacred. Why is it ok to kill animals and eat them??? I still have yet to hear a pro lifer answer me this one. (Hurry, the moderators will probably shut down this thread too)
Because humans have souls and this planet and all the animals were put here to support this habitat. This grand experiment in humanity by the creator. All the animals of this planet serve a specific function, they have clear jobs. They may exist to just be food.
But human beings are different. We serve no purpose. We are at the top of the food chain. We are the users, the consumers. Isn't it obvious?
We didn't evolve from Apes, what a moronic notion that is. The leaps that these so called "scientists" made from the bones of long extinct beings to modern humans is good comedy, but that's all it is.
Our most brilliant scientists have NO CLUE what creation means or is. But they think they know the mind of God, they think they know when it's OK to kill a child. They think they know what is human or not.
Because humans have souls and this planet and all the animals were put here to support this habitat. This grand experiment in humanity by the creator. All the animals of this planet serve a specific function, they have clear jobs. They may exist to just be food.
But human beings are different. We serve no purpose. We are at the top of the food chain. We are the users, the consumers. Isn't it obvious?
We didn't evolve from Apes, what a moronic notion that is. The leaps that these so called "scientists" made from the bones of long extinct beings to modern humans is good comedy, but that's all it is.
Our most brilliant scientists have NO CLUE what creation means or is. But they think they know the mind of God, they think they know when it's OK to kill a child. They think they know what is human or not.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and tragic.
Humans have souls? Prove it.
There's a creator? Prove it.
Animals exist to be food? Prove it.
Creation? Prove it.
God? Prove it.
Your post is laughable. If you insist in believing in Bronze Age myths, that's entirely up to you. However, you have no right to insist that others live by your superstitious dogma.
And then you accuse gays of being bullies? What a joke!
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and tragic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
