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.
So, kill a child in the womb... good... kill a child outside of the womb.. bad.
So. you have established your position simply on aspects that have no real consistency other than unimportant considerations that are specifically designed to meet your agenda.
So.... Let me ask you this.
If a person walks up to a pregnant woman who is just about to give birth... and kills the child... the best you could do is charge him with battery on the woman right?
Or is this is another one of those progressive "loop de loop" logic sessions where you conjure up some rationalized explanation how this is different?
an abortion is voluntary, being a victim of a crime is not.
do you believe a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will? labor and deliver against her will? raise or adopt out a child against her will?
why do you take the conversation to such unrealistic places? I would gather a guess I believe in science far more than you do.
Obviously you don't believe in science, since you apparently believe in some magic that makes a baby born at 39 weeks different than the one at 39 weeks still in the womb.
government doesn't decide who is human, that's beyond their brief. Government (the judiciary) decides who is a legal person, & the US Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a legal person. & therefore abortion is permissible in the first trimester, & so on.
That Nazis &/or racists have held vaguely similar ideas (limited to a superabundance of self love for Aryans in the first case & presumably for their own race in the second case) is sheer coincidence, & therefore not convincing @ all.
As noted before, birth or delivery marks the distinction between a fetus & a child. Once born, it's a child. There is nothing magic about the operation of law - the boundaries in Roe are fairly clear - if unwelcome to some.
Law has determined the personable means of many over the case of our history. Arguing a case of law in face of this fact is nothing more than arguing semantics to cling to a point. We do not serve law, law serves us. To claim the law is sufficient to neglect the liberty of a life is to claim you support the justness of slavery under the law as it existed in the past.
This means you do not consider slavery immoral or wrong, merely a matter of legal precedence and therefore have no issue with any moral violation as long as the law is made proper to see it fit.
People should be fearful of the likes of people like you, for through law you will make any atrocity acceptable.
Obviously you don't believe in science, since you apparently believe in some magic that makes a baby born at 39 weeks different than the one at 39 weeks still in the womb.
so you don't answer question, just throw out ones for the sake of argument. as they say in court, asked and answered.
an abortion is voluntary, being a victim of a crime is not.
do you believe a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will? labor and deliver against her will? raise or adopt out a child against her will?
Does the child volunteer to be killed?
I think anyone should be FORCED to deal with the consequences of their actions and their actions should only be restricted when it infringes on the liberty of another (in this case the life in their womb).
As for being forced to raise the child? No, she can relinquish responsibility on such if she is unwilling on incapable to raise such. There are many willing to take on such responsibilities.
The fact that you think killing as a form of convenience... I find very disturbing though, but not uncommon or out of historical context for most progressives.
What makes a 30 week preemie in the NICU more biologically human than the one at 39 weeks still in the womb?
Try not to ignore science on this one.
you do have reading comprehension problems. they are both human as I said several times now. the difference is one is dependent on one woman's womb and unborn. the other has been born and is being neutered by the hospital staff. try not to ignore the science of born and unborn.
answer the question should women be forced to give birth against their own will?
So, although you might not agree with it, do you feel a woman should have the right to arbitrarily terminate a pregnancy at 35 weeks?
I say no. I say their should be major restrictions such as if the mothers life were in danger.
Do you think arbitrary late term abortions should be legal?
They aren't.
Late term abortions are not preformed unless the mothers life is in danger or the fetus is dead or there is some life threatening anomaly and that the physician thinks is best to terminate.
I dont think it is my decision to make for anyone else. I agree with Roe v. Wade.
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.
