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.
You seem to have a convoluted understanding of logical process or reasoned evaluation.
Is a child in a womb a life? Yes or no?
First answer this as it can only be answered with a single correct answer. Your failure and attempt to answer in any other way than that correct answer is an admission of irrational evaluation and all discussion with you then is irrational and pointless.
So, please answer the question so I can gauge whether you are reasonable enough to even attempt a discussion with.
of course a fetus is life, to be precise it is potential life until it's born. yes it is human. I still support a woman's right to choice. btw my answers may be different than yours does not make them irrational.
Ah, so if you were alive back in 1802 and the law said the black child you saw in town was property and not a person, you'd agree with that.
Ouch. The fact that you believe a government can declare who is a person and who deserves basic rights is scary. We saw what happened in Germany when people believed that.
Yah, Blacks were often treated as property in the South pre-Civil War, & in some other parts of the US & the territories as well. Not all Blacks were slaves, in fact. There were some free Blacks - but they were constantly in danger of being dragged off to the South & treated as slaves. There were dissenters to that opinion about Blacks as slaves - the abolition movement sprang from religious & civic & economic & political bases - & there were abolitionists even in the South.
Yes, the Founding Fathers miscalculated - they had hoped that slavery would die out naturally. & they thought that the South was necessary to the Revolutionary War - to the extent that they engineered protection for slavery, in order to convince the South to join in the revolution.
People being human, we will make mistakes. The case of Nazi Germany is instructive - they had lost a modern industrial war & suffered lots of losses & material damage. The victorious Allies inflicted punishing reparations, & were quite prepared to starve Germany into submission. The Kaiser William was allowed to escape any responsibility or punishment for leading his country to ruin. In that atmosphere, Hitler was able to rise by demonizing the Jewish communities - the famous stab in the back rhetoric.
He was a sick person, & the German people were hungry & weary & desperate enough to try irrationality, as long as it seemed to be working. In the long run, it failed them yet again. Perhaps they learned from that last throw of the dice.
In any event, the cases are different. The US has all kinds of faults, right enough. We don't have a Hitler trying to rise on the back of misery - & if one didn't arise in the US during the Depression, I don't think we'll have one now.
No one who has carried a baby through to the third trimester is taking the decision to abort lightly. Why isn't this just an issue between the woman, her family / loved ones and her doctor. Why does this need to be regulated.
If you re pro-choice - that is a fine individual decision. The government should not intervene in my personal decisions.
Uggh. Why does the fetus become more important than the mother?
Who says it does?
I clearly said that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy if her life is in jeopardy.
Do you think s 3-month-old is more important than its mother? Shoukd a mother with a 3-month-old who doesn't want to give the baby away or raise it be allowed to kill it?
of course a fetus is life, to be precise it is potential life until it's born. yes it is human. I still support a woman's right to choice. btw my answers may be different than yours does not make them irrational.
Wait... now you are confusing me.
Potential means:
having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
When you precede "potential" before life, you are establishing that the object in question is having or showing the capacity to become of develop into "a life", ie a :Potential life.
Yet we have already established by your own comments that a fetus IS a life.
So how can that fetus be a "potential life" if you have already admitted it is a life?
I apologize, I merely speak the English language and only understand the words by their proper meaning and use within the correctly established context they are applied.
so... as we have established by your comments, the fetus is a life, so therefore it can not be a "potential life" as it is already a life.
Maybe you could clear this up for me? Sorry.. but words have meaning and I kind of pay attention to them?
No one who has carried a baby through to the third trimester is taking the decision to abort lightly. Why isn't this just an issue between the woman, her family / loved ones and her doctor. Why does this need to be regulated.
If you re pro-choice - that is a fine individual decision. The government should not intervene in my personal decisions.
It needs to be regulated once the a human life hangs in the balance.
At a point in the pregnancy prior to delivery, it's a baby. It's a human life. Human life deserves reasonable protection.
Yah, Blacks were often treated as property in the South pre-Civil War, & in some other parts of the US & the territories as well. Not all Blacks were slaves, in fact. There were some free Blacks - but they were constantly in danger of being dragged off to the South & treated as slaves. There were dissenters to that opinion about Blacks as slaves - the abolition movement sprang from religious & civic & economic & political bases - & there were abolitionists even in the South.
Yes, the Founding Fathers miscalculated - they had hoped that slavery would die out naturally. & they thought that the South was necessary to the Revolutionary War - to the extent that they engineered protection for slavery, in order to convince the South to join in the revolution.
People being human, we will make mistakes. The case of Nazi Germany is instructive - they had lost a modern industrial war & suffered lots of losses & material damage. The victorious Allies inflicted punishing reparations, & were quite prepared to starve Germany into submission. The Kaiser William was allowed to escape any responsibility or punishment for leading his country to ruin. In that atmosphere, Hitler was able to rise by demonizing the Jewish communities - the famous stab in the back rhetoric.
He was a sick person, & the German people were hungry & weary & desperate enough to try irrationality, as long as it seemed to be working. In the long run, it failed them yet again. Perhaps they learned from that last throw of the dice.
In any event, the cases are different. The US has all kinds of faults, right enough. We don't have a Hitler trying to rise on the back of misery - & if one didn't arise in the US during the Depression, I don't think we'll have one now.
It doesn't change the fact that if the government is the decision maker on who is a human, it can also decide some people are not human.
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.
The cases are very different
