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.
I think it's irrelevent whether you consider a fetus a baby, a person, what have you. Nothing gets to live inside me without my consent. I don't care if I'm carrying a baby or a dang 6-year-old, I reserve the right to remove you from inside me in a timely manner.
I said I would lay off...and I will. But this was put up while I was typing my last post.
UnexErr...you have just given the best (and IMO the ONLY) argument for legal abortion.
Though I must admit...it's a awfully good one.
No 'QUIPA...I don't find "dismissing viability *shaky ground*"...MOF, I don't consider "viability" at all, in ANY way what-so-ever.
While OTOH, Nozz says he doesn't...but, he actually does.
He just trades physical viability for mental viability in his argument...to justify aborting before a certain gestational time period.
I say, to be fair and just...once you have a separate and distinct human being (and it's been scientifically proven that a separate and distinct human being exists once conception occurs)...if your society grants rights/laws to human beings...ALL should have them, regardless of physical or mental development/viability.
My position is the only true non-prejudicial position.
I say: All you have to be is a human being...and you should get the same rights and protection under the law as any other.
ANY other criteria, or consideration, is what's demonstrative of prejudice.
Based on this logic, most miscarriages should result in charges being filed against the woman for such things as assault, endangerment, homicide, manslaughter, etc. The fact that nobody seriously considers filing such charges pretty much negates your claim that the unique DNA of a fertilized egg imparts to it the legal rights of a human.
Legally: Before the third trimester.
Morally: Never . . . it is an immoral non-solution to what is a moral problem.
Finally, someone I can agree with. Thank you! And, thank you for the birthmother of our son with Down syndrome whom we adopted at 4 weeks of age. When I think of all the joy he has brought us and the loving kindness he has showed others, well, I can see from the tone coming from the thread that most would have ended his life and that is what happens to the, I believe, the majority these days. There is actually a long waiting list of people waiting to adopt babies/children with Down syndrome. You just can't judge the quality of life of another human being. To be ripped from the womb for little more than convenience.................From what I see, abortion is not reducing poverty, they have 4 kids and everyone else has 1 or 2. Those keeping the Ten Commandments will, of course, not be partaking in such a deliberate and inhuman act - "Thou shall not kill." and I just have no doubt that God considers that a living person and mostly, I just care about his opinion!
Last edited by AnywhereElse; 11-23-2011 at 02:35 PM..
Bet that you'll see a lot of changes in the future Annie.
You can only deduct "dependents" (as per the current tax code) on your income tax...not just human beings. The code may change in the future.
More lost revenue for a government already drowning in debt.....allowing tax deductions for fetus/persons....just what we need.
Fathers are typically responsible for costs...which for the preborn human being is prenatal care and the like.
No, not just prenatal care....the father would also have to pay to house and feed his "child".....which would mean paying 50% of the cost of housing and feeding...... maintaining...... the "incubator".....which is clearly the status you wish to reduce women to.
To get insurance coverage you typically need to get a "maternity rider" to your policy, usually before pregnancy. That will cost extra. It will pay for prenatal costs.
No, if a fetus is a person, you would be required to change your policy from a single policy to a family policy. $$$
Don't be surprised if you see death certificates or burials for miscarriages if they are designated to be human beings by law.
I guess the funeral home industry will be delighted with this developement.....the parents who have to pay to bury the results of a miscarriage.....not so much.
Don't be surprised what sanctions could be applied for what may be determined to be neglect. Years ago the was no penalty for not having a baby in a car seat (I never had one)...but now it's considered neglect and is punishable by law. If the preborn are legally designated human beings there could be a whole plethora of laws that are levied.
And here it is. If this isn't relegating women to the status of breeding stock, I don't know what is. How many government agencies and regulations are we going to have to "manage" pregnant women? Will we assign each one of them a government case worker to watch what they eat, what they drink, how much exercise they get, how much sleep they get, sanction them if they miss a doctor's appointment.....how about we just send them all to breeding camps so it will be easier and more cost effective to manage them and control everything the fetus/person is exposed to?
It truly scares me to think there are people out there that would be OK with this kind developement.
If there is anyone out there who thinks the pro-life movement isn't out to take away a woman's rights.....the quoted post should be a wake up call for you.
Distusting...... sickening, disgusting and downright scary.
I hope you pro-lifers out there are happy if the day ever comes when you, your wife or your daughter ends up in prison because some government case worker decides you did something to cause a miscarriage.
Those keeping the Ten Commandments will, of course, not be partaking in such a deliberate and inhuman act - "Thou shall not kill." and I just have no doubt that God considers that a living person and mostly, I just care about his opinion!
Same people who are for the death penalty for criminals of various stripes support forcing women to carry fetuses to term because they think they can decide for those women.
How many people did God kill in the bible? How many miscarriages is God responsible for? (that's not even considered).
Have any of you read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood?
The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood, Valerie Martin - Google Books A gripping vision of our society radically overturned by a theocratic revolution, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid's Tale has become one of the most powerful and most widely read novels of our time. Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead, serving in the household of the enigmatic Commander and his bitter wife. She may go out once a day to markets whose signs are now pictures because women are not allowed to read. She must pray that the Commander makes her pregnant, for in a time of declining birthrates her value lies in her fertility,
Some people on CD seem to want this type of world.
Current science has determined and concluded that a new, separate, and distinct human being is created at conception
Not really. A new cell is created containing Human DNA. But a cell with human DNA, even if that DNA happens to be unique, is in no way a person or a human being.
In fact due to mutation during cell division not ALL your cells are created perfectly every time. Your cells multiply and divide innumerable times every hour. Every hour astounding numbers of new cells are created.
Sometimes, due to mutation, a cell is created that is not like the rest in terms of DNA and is likely unique. We do not worry about its "rights" however because clearly just being a single cell with a unique strand of DNA is not special.
People typically vote so as to get what they want...and I believe most (in the U.S. anyway) want abortion to be legal.
Ah... well then, using your own majority opinion overrides argument...it seems all over barring the shouting. Or is the idea to persuade opinion to change? That is certainly the agenda behind the Ray Comfort propaganda film with its grubby Hitler analogy.
That's of course a person's good right - to press their views, but the falsity of the argument or at least the other side must also be heard.
Quote:
It's going to take the bringing in of the science...forcing a ruling made based on what now appears to be the fundamental and irreducible findings of the scientific community...and then moving forward from there to a mandate of rights and protections.
Many laws are "forced" into passage...that had they been left to the whims and caprice of voting public would never "pass muster".
Like the "no smoking" laws I mentioned in previous posts.
Also..you are right about my being able to argue at length.
I have a decided advantage over most.
I am at my computer, conducting business, with "lag time" in between what I'm doing. So I'm losing no "personal time" where I could be doing something else...and I'm making money. Not everyone has it like that.
I think you argue well and you make a strong case. You are so much better than I recall that you used to be when you were a bit irritating. I respect your views and argument. I just think they are a bit selective about when to play the science card and when to play the emotion card. But then, I do the same.
This is a case where cold science (as Thom R has so often shown) only provided the facts. The morality is not determined by science. The morality/ emotion -response ceases to kick in when we are looking at at a clump of cells and the sympathy is for the mother. Appeals to science, legal responsibility and what papers have to be signed come across as a bit calculated and cynical. Though I believe you are sincere enough.
Quote:
But...GET READY TO CHEER...I will lay off for now...at least on this thread.
Happy Thanksgiving to All!!
I think you did a good gob in arguing. I doubt anyone could could have done better. But I ain't persuaded, not all the way down to a fertilized egg.
A mother with an unwanted pregnancy already made the CHOICE/DECISION to have sex with the risk of getting pregnant.
Only 7% of abortions have health issues or were raped/incest.
93% - that's 93% of ABORTIONS were because the mother DECIDED to kill her baby because she & the father failed to make the right decision about birth control prior to conception & just find being pregnant "inconvenient." Abortion Statistics
Quote:
How many people did God kill in the bible? How many miscarriages is God responsible for? (that's not even considered).
God is love.
Love did not kill those people in the bible, people did.
Love is expressed (or not) be us.
So, the love or hate is not done by God, but by us.
When we love, we know God (GoOD). When we don't love, we don't know God (GoOD).
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.
And, thank you for the birthmother of our son with Down syndrome whom we adopted at 4 weeks of age. When I think of all the joy he has brought us and the loving kindness he has showed others, well, I can see from the tone coming from the thread that most would have ended his life and that is what happens to the, I believe, the majority these days. There is actually a long waiting list of people waiting to adopt babies/children with Down syndrome. You just can't judge the quality of life of another human being. To be ripped from the womb for little more than convenience.................From what I see, abortion is not reducing poverty, they have 4 kids and everyone else has 1 or 2. Those keeping the Ten Commandments will, of course, not be partaking in such a deliberate and inhuman act - "Thou shall not kill." and I just have no doubt that God considers that a living person and mostly, I just care about his opinion!
well then, using your own majority opinion overrides argument...it seems all over barring the shouting. Or is the idea to persuade opinion to change? That is certainly the agenda behind the Ray Comfort propaganda film with its grubby Hitler analogy. 
