FILL IN THE BLANK: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________ (recall, best)
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.
This is your second post about women killing their offspring as "typical behavior"...replete with an aire of "who cares?, no big deal! Hmmmmmmm.
They didn't give statistics...but pretty much said it was for survival reasons, or out of complete ignorance thinking they needed to do it to appease some God that people in the past did away with their children.
Those are not the reasons women in modern western cultures kill their .
I don't know how it compares to the past, but currently a third will do it.
I find that reprehensible...even if you don't.
Safe abortions are better than killing a newborn baby, don't you agree or are you simply being argumentative for the sake of it?
I don't care what you find reprehensible. I care about the fact that if a woman chooses not to have her baby she can obtain a safe, legal abortion without morons protesting in her path and idiots trying to convince government it's a immoral act worthy of being hung and quartered on the spot.
Abortion is legal is most countries, including the US, deal with it. If you don't like it, don't have one. Simple as that.
Safe abortions are better than killing a newborn baby, don't you agree or are you simply being argumentative for the sake of it?
I don't care what you find reprehensible. I care about the fact that if a woman chooses not to have her baby she can obtain a safe, legal abortion without morons protesting in her path and idiots trying to convince government it's a immoral act worthy of being hung and quartered on the spot.
Abortion is legal is most countries, including the US, deal with it. If you don't like it, don't have one. Simple as that.
Slavery used to be legal in the U.S. too. MOF, those that found it acceptable probably had an argument something like:
"I don't care what you find cruel. I care about the fact that if a land owner chooses to be a slavemaster they can obtain legal slaves without some morons espousing emancipation in their path to the slave auction, and idiots trying to convince the government it's a immoral act worthy of being hung and quartered on the spot.
Slavery is legal in most countries, including the U.S., deal with it. If you don't like slavery, don't own one. Simple as that".
It took a couple hundred years for us to figure out it was wrong. Though now, most see it for what it was, and very few think it was cool that it was ever legal.
Hopefully, abortion will go the same way...but much faster.
Abortion is no different than killing a newborn, or any other innocent human being.
So, no...I don't agree it's "better than killing a newborn baby". It is the same thing.
And I'm not "being argumentative". With our current scientific knowledge on the matter, I don't see how it can logically and reasonably be viewed any other way, absent a biased and prejudicial position.
And the term "safe abortion"---Safe for who? Safe for the killer doctor for sure, and probably safe for the killer woman...but just the opposite of "safe" for the innocent human being they are conspiring to kill.
You seem to think that for some reason the human species is "special"......it isn't.
The human species is nothing more than one of many species that have evolved on this earth.
A fetus is nothing more than an organism that has the potential to become a human being.....it certainly isn't some sacred entity as you would like to believe.
The woman who has to carry the fetus has rights.....a fetus doesn't. The woman is more important and her health and wishes trump those of a mere organism that is feeding off of her body.
If that organism is feeding off of her body against her will, she has every right to have it removed. The woman is a person, the fetus is an organism.....an organism that is at the mercy of its host.
A woman is more important than an organism the size of a peanut that cannot think and cannot feel.....that is not "guilt"....that is FACT.
First...we are all "organisms". You, me, a fetus, a pregnant woman, everybody. But ALL of those are Human Beings.
Your assessment of a fetus as "nothing more than an organism that has the potential to become a human being"...flies in the face of current science that has determined and concluded there exists a fully separate and distinct human being from conception on.
That you "say" it isn't...doesn't change the scientific fact that it is.
And unless you have some of your own evidence that shows the current understanding of embryology, biology, and genetics to be wrong...your statement is relegated to "erroneous opinion".
I don't think a fetal human being is any more "sacred" than any other human being. I think they are the same.
They should be granted the same rights and protections under the law as any other human being in the society.
And that would necessarily proscribe the mother and some doctor conspiring to kill her/him.
Q: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________
A: You're one of God's "chosen people" and its mother is among the hundreds of thousands of civilians in neighboring tribes who must be exterminated because their land is on God's gift-shopping list...?
First...we are all "organisms". You, me, a fetus, a pregnant woman, everybody. But ALL of those are Human Beings.
Your assessment of a fetus as "nothing more than an organism that has the potential to become a human being"...flies in the face of current science that has determined and concluded there exists a fully separate and distinct human being from conception on.
That you "say" it isn't...doesn't change the scientific fact that it is.
And unless you have some of your own evidence that shows the current understanding of embryology, biology, and genetics to be wrong...your statement is relegated to "erroneous opinion".
I don't think a fetal human being is any more "sacred" than any other human being. I think they are the same.
They should be granted the same rights and protections under the law as any other human being in the society.
And that would necessarily proscribe the mother and some doctor conspiring to kill her/him.
Up until the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is essentially a parasite on the mother host. It is fed by the host mother. From biology, a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. The fetus *can* be harmful to the mother consuming calcium and creating bone loss in her. While most parasites are of different species from the host, in this case the sperm might be considered an invading body that created the parasite. We don't see any problem with killing off other parasites. I think that the right of the woman to do this is paramount over the right of any fetus to be carried to term.
Up until the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is essentially a parasite on the mother host. It is fed by the host mother. From biology, a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. The fetus *can* be harmful to the mother consuming calcium and creating bone loss in her. While most parasites are of different species from the host, in this case the sperm might be considered an invading body that created the parasite. We don't see any problem with killing off other parasites. I think that the right of the woman to do this is paramount over the right of any fetus to be carried to term.
Your equating a womans child growing inside her to a "parasite" that you see no problem with her "killing off"...tells me a lot about you.
Your equating a womans child growing inside her to a "parasite" that you see no problem with her "killing off"...tells me a lot about you.
The use of negative words always reveal a negative attitude. The words Hitler used to describe the Jews . . . like vermin . . . telegraphed his attitude and intentions long before he started the holocaust. What do you do to vermin . . . you exterminate them.
If you say so but I still notice how you ignored (ran away from) post #259 and then hid your attack on me in another post. I do not usually miss such tactics, though clearly it delayed my response that one time. Nice try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
But Nozz...you REALLY don't know why society demonstrates a greater interest in protecting the lives of "separate, distinct, and unique HUMAN BEINGS" over the separate, distinct, and unique life of cows and trees?!!
I know why they do, I just do not see their reasons as being valid. They do so because of arguments from emotion for one. When people like you call a clump of cells "human" people are going to be emotionally fooled by that. When they look at pictures such as that posted by SuperSoul and see something human shaped that is enough to turn off their rational brain and turn on their emotions.
Another reason is pure lazyness. Arbitrarily selecting conception as a point to base ones opinions on is, in a word, easy. It fits neatly in the lazy mind as an easy out for thinking about and researching such issues. People like easy answers and many of them, like yourself, will arbitrarily select them for no other reason than that.
However when it REALLY comes down to it people have managed to surprise me and they agree with me not you. As evidenced for example by the failure of the proposition in Mississippi to define conception as the starting point for "personhood".
When asked does life begin at conception Mississippi said "No" and I was surprised. Despite the emotional arguments and the lazyness I was convinced people would vote with... it turns out that enough of them are thinking with their rational brain to realise people like me, not you, are right on this issue and suggesting that "life" begins at conception in the context of things like abortion simply is both unworkable and nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
you are clueless about why humans are special and rate "rights" over cows and trees.
Not what I am saying it all. I love how you change what I say into what I did not say and then pretend I have been foolish or idiotic for saying it.
No, I am perfectly clear on why I treat humans as more special than cows and trees. The issue is that the arguments I know support that position are not ones that grant that "special" status to a 20 week old fetus.
So you lie, simply outright lie, when you suggest I have ever said that humans are not special compared to cows and trees, or that I have no idea why they are. That is not what I ever said.
I said I have no idea why "uniqeness" or "Human DNA" have got to do with that "special" status". A completely different thing to what you claimed I said, but I guess what you invented me saying is easier to reply to than what I actually said huh?
No, to clarify for anyone who was duped by your outright insertion of words in my mouth, this is what my position is:
I do treat "human beings" as being more special than cows and trees in the context of things like "rights". However none of the arguments I know of for treating them thusly are arguments that allow us to assign that "special status" to the fetus at 20 weeks or before.
Further my position is this: If you actually start making argument explicitly as to why you think humans are more special than these things, you will probably also find that none of them support such a position either. Which is likely why you are so adamantly avoiding adumbrating your arguments for why humans are more "special" and are simply declaring it to be so as if that is enough. You know, as well as I do, that if you make explicit your reasons for making such a claim, that none of them will support your position against abortion.
..................
They should be granted the same rights and protections under the law as any other human being in the society.
............
How ridiculous!
Are you going to give them a name and a birth certificate on the day of conception?
Are you going to deduct them on your income taxes from the day of conception?
Are you going to make the father pay child support from the day of conception?
Are you going to pay extra for your health insurance for that new dependent from the day of conception?
Are we going to count them as people on the census from the day of conception?
If you live in a "no children" allowed apartment.....should you be evicted or charged extra rent from the day of conception?
If you see a movie or get on a plane or go on a cruise.....should you have to pay for another person?
Are we going to require death certificates and formal burials for miscarriages?
Are we going to take mothers who miscarry into court to prove they didn't do something to cause a miscarraige? Are we going to charge them with child neglect or voluntary manslaughter if they are found guilty?
Good grief!
You can't bestow "personhood" onto something that is NOT a person!
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.
