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.
Nope, because abortion is not killing. Fetuses don't even have functioning nervous systems until the midway point of the pregnancy
Let me see if I have this straight: if a brain dead person, er, thing, is on the table and I decide to stab that person, er, thing, I have not killed her, er, it?
I get the argument that some make that it's morally permissible to kill people in certain contexts, but to perform contortions like the one you're doing to rationalize this seems a bit silly upon reflection, does it not? If you're not killing the unborn child, please substitute the proper verb, in your view.
Your logic doesn't follow with that final assertion.
Proabortionist:
Pay for my birth control!!! Oh, well, I don't use it so ...
Pay for my abortion!!! Oh, I can't have one? ...
Pay for the child!!!!
They don't care about the baby in the womb, which is why they want to kill it.
They don't care about the child when it's born, which is why they are 100% dependent on and demand that prolifers taking care of it.
Common denominators?
100%: Give Me Money
0%: Responsibility
Let me see if I have this straight: if a brain dead person, er, thing, is on the table and I decide to stab that person, er, thing, I have not killed her, er, it?
I get the argument that some make that it's morally permissible to kill people in certain contexts, but to perform contortions like the one you're doing to rationalize this seems a bit silly upon reflection, does it not? If you're not killing the unborn child, please substitute the proper verb, in your view.
"Killing an unborn child" has never been legal murder. That is the distinction that you and others miss, time and time again. I have pointed it out on multiple threads and surprisingly (/s) never get much of a response. It is glossed over. Abortion, when it was illegal, was not an act of murder. It was simply the act of performing the abortion that was illegal.
Some states require an unborn baby to have drawn a breath outside the womb before murder charges can be filed in cases where something happened to mom at the hands of another person (some assault) and baby died as a result. If the baby did not draw a breath and was born dead, it is not murder. Because in those cases the baby is not considered to be a person under the law. Feticide may be a crime in some states, but it is separate from homicide. Killing any living person would fall under homicide. Including a baby who is 10 minutes old. But for a fetus, it can be a different crime or not a crime at all.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Proabortionist:
Pay for my birth control!!! Oh, well, I don't use it so ...
Pay for my abortion!!! Oh, I can't have one? ...
Pay for the child!!!!
They don't care about the baby in the womb, which is why they want to kill it.
They don't care about the child when it's born, which is why they are 100% dependent on and demand that prolifers taking care of it.
Common denominators?
100%: Give Me Money
0%: Responsibility
Why would you care for something that you, wait for it......NEVER WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!?!?!?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves
Let me see if I have this straight: if a brain dead person, er, thing, is on the table and I decide to stab that person, er, thing, I have not killed her, er, it?
I get the argument that some make that it's morally permissible to kill people in certain contexts, but to perform contortions like the one you're doing to rationalize this seems a bit silly upon reflection, does it not? If you're not killing the unborn child, please substitute the proper verb, in your view.
"Killing an unborn child" has never been legal murder. That is the distinction that you and others miss, time and time again. I have pointed it out on multiple threads and surprisingly (/s) never get much of a response. It is glossed over. Abortion, when it was illegal, was not an act of murder. It was simply the act of performing the abortion that was illegal.
Some states require an unborn baby to have drawn a breath outside the womb before murder charges can be filed in cases where something happened to mom at the hands of another person (some assault) and baby died as a result. If the baby did not draw a breath and was born dead, it is not murder. Because in those cases the baby is not considered to be a person under the law.
No one is missing the "legal" distinction as you are presenting it here.
Slaves were 3/5 of a person per legal definition. Do you believe that a slave was comprised of 3/5 the biological matter as a white person?
And there is of course the distinction that 38 states make .. when killing an unborn? Is considered murder. Fetal homicide. Punishable by law.
How do you continue to gloss over the 3/5 of a person legal definition of a slave as well as the 38 states that consider killing an unborn child murder?
Never seen you or anyone else answer either of those. Legal isn't science. And legal? Isn't right either. And that is the distinction that you miss time and time again.
Since you have a hard time with the word control, how about limit? Taking away an option, limits ones choice.
Women have the right to control what and when of her reproduction anyway she sees fit.
For the umpteenth time how is me stating my opinion on abortion limiting or controlling women? You pro-abortionists can't tolerate a difference of opinion without resorting to your nonsense above? You just can't stand it unless you can convince us anti-abortionists to agree with you? Why is that so important to you? This is a forum not a voting booth.
Women have the right to control their reproductive capabilities by not getting pregnant in the first place by using birth control and/or making sure her sex partner does. They also know ahead of time that there is a failure rate on not using it properly. If they go ahead and have sex anyway they become responsible for welfare of the life that was created. Being responsible IMO is not killing it.
Argument by assertion. That's a logical fallacy. Explain what precisely is illogical. I doubt you can.
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.
You pro-abortionists can't tolerate a difference of opinion without resorting to your nonsense above? You just can't stand it unless you can convince us anti-abortionists to agree with you? Why is that so important to you? This is a forum not a voting booth. 