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.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, then you should be interested in addressing the reasons women choose abortion. If you value life so much, then you should be thinking about the lives of children and women.
Nothing in life ever works that way. Infanticide is infanticide - period. The reason, unless is is equal to the taking of another's life, is irrelelvant.
Most abortion is because of irresponsibility and greed on the part of the others. You make it sound like their irresponsibility is somebody else's responsibility - one of the hallmarks of liberalism.
YOur post is the same, tired meaningless boilerplate that is nothing ut plain old gibberish.
Nothing in life ever works that way. Infanticide is infanticide - period. The reason, unless is is equal to the taking of another's life, is irrelelvant.
Most abortion is because of irresponsibility and greed on the part of the others. You make it sound like their irresponsibility is somebody else's responsibility - one of the hallmarks of liberalism.
YOur post is the same, tired meaningless boilerplate that is nothing ut plain old gibberish.
A, you've failed to properly use the word "infanticide" as it's defined. An infant is not an infant until it's born.
B, most abortion is because of responsible women thinking of what kind of life they can provide to a newborn, and how having a child will impact the children they already have, how having a child will impact their careers and lives. Most people think that it's okay to think about the future, only pregnant women aren't supposed to, because that makes them selfish and greedy.
C, my post wan't gibberish, or you wouldn't have felt the need to try to attack it. But your failed attack only demonstrates the weakness of YOUR position.
Can men give birth to babies right now? No? Then too bad. You do not get to DECIDE what she does with her body.
Once men are able to get pregnant and go through all the emotional issues that are tied to it, no man has a right to tell anyone let alone a pregnant woman what she can or can't do.
Her body, her choice. If she doesn't want to carry a child around for 9 months, that's her choice and no amount of crying from the would be father is going to override that.
If the man is so willing to pay the bills and wants to be a loving father, there are millions of adoptable children that are ignored every year waiting for a home. He can at least make an effort to adopt one of them.
There are several lies used in the abortion debate by the pro-infanticide crowd.
One is that government has no business in the bedroom, as if abortions happen in bedrooms, or that there is some special status in bedrooms that suspends laws that apply elsewhere. The reach of laws extends to every square inch of the state or country except embassies of foreighn nations.
The second lie used here, is that abortions are performed on women and that is is part of her body.
The is falacious. The embryo, zygote, fetus etc, is NOT part of her body, it merely resides within her body. Like a person is a neighbors house by invitation. They are not part of the house, just inside the house.
You have to watch the pro-murder side, they are very deceitful.
What is the absolute demacation between alive and not-alive? Is it when the sperm hits egg ? A lot of anti-abortionists don't even know jack about biology.
Read the above sentence...no logic present. First, you call it murder , then you say it's OK???? The fetus ISN'T a person in the case of rape or incest???
What I said was, it is murder, and no one can argue with that. What I mentioned about abortion was not whether or not it was murder, it was whether or not such a murder was in the best interest of society.
I would also "murder" child molesters and rapists via "lethal injections" if it was up to me. But I wouldn't sit around calling capital punishment something other than what it is, murder, in trying to justify it.
I would also legalize assisted suicide.
But I'm not going to sit around making excuses, saying that it is just "men trying to control a woman's behavior", or that government is overstepping its bounds, or that it is a womans right, blah blah blah. It is only those things because we say it is, and if we think the act of "murder" is helpful to society, then we should allow it. If we don't, then we shouldn't. But lets at least be honest with ourselves about what we are doing.
The people who support abortion think they are on some moral authority because a "fetus is not actually a human-being", when they want to have an abortion. But at the same time they want to declare that fetus' are human-beings if the woman does not want to have an abortion. That statement makes no sense, and the definition of fetus or child or human-being becomes completely arbitrary.
The argument for pro-choice people should simply be, the world is better that abortions exist. Because it is better to not bring a life into the world at all, if it will be disadvantaged and most likely unhappy its entire life. So while it may be murder in its basic function, it is actually an act of compassion rather than an act of anger or aggression. And in essence, its intention is to help rather than harm.
That would be a coherent argument, this argument about fetus' not being people is simply illogical.
A, you've failed to properly use the word "infanticide" as it's defined. An infant is not an infant until it's born.
B, most abortion is because of responsible women thinking of what kind of life they can provide to a newborn, and how having a child will impact the children they already have, how having a child will impact their careers and lives. Most people think that it's okay to think about the future, only pregnant women aren't supposed to, because that makes them selfish and greedy.
C, my post wan't gibberish, or you wouldn't have felt the need to try to attack it. But your failed attack only demonstrates the weakness of YOUR position.
Okay, instead of infanticide, I'll use "infanticide". Feel better now?
Item B is just plain Bravo Sierra. You are trying to wrap up greed, selfishness and wholesale irresponsbility, and make it look like a Saint. Sorry, no cigar!!!
Item C is gibberish, your post is, was and shall remain, as your one above is, Gibberish.
What I said was, it is murder, and no one can argue with that. What I mentioned about abortion was not whether or not it was murder, it was whether or not such a murder was in the best interest of society.
I would also "murder" child molesters and rapists via "lethal injections" if it was up to me. But I wouldn't sit around calling capital punishment something other than what it is, murder, in trying to justify it.
I would also legalize assisted suicide.
But I'm not going to sit around making excuses, saying that it is just "men trying to control a woman's behavior", or that government is overstepping its bounds, or that it is a womans right, blah blah blah. It is only those things because we say it is, and if we think the act of "murder" is helpful to society, then we should allow it. If we don't, then we shouldn't. But lets at least be honest with ourselves about what we are doing.
The people who support abortion think they are on some moral authority because a "fetus is not actually a human-being", when they want to have an abortion. But at the same time they want to declare that fetus' are human-beings if the woman does not want to have an abortion."""
WHERE? WHO?NO.
""""That statement makes no sense, and the definition of fetus or child or human-being becomes completely arbitrary.
The argument for pro-choice people should simply be, the world is better that abortions exist. Because it is better to not bring a life into the world at all, if it will be disadvantaged and most likely unhappy its entire life. So while it may be murder in its basic function, it is actually an act of compassion rather than an act of anger or aggression. And in essence, its intention is to help rather than harm.
That would be a coherent argument, this argument about fetus' not being people is simply illogical.
You quoted this :"First, you call it murder , then you say it's OK???? The fetus ISN'T a person in the case of rape or incest???""
And then proceeded to ignore it.
WHY do you think abortion is OK in the case of rape or incest?
Okay, instead of infanticide, I'll use "infanticide". Feel better now?
Item B is just plain Bravo Sierra. You are trying to wrap up greed, selfishness and wholesale irresponsbility, and make it look like a Saint. Sorry, no cigar!!!
Item C is gibberish, your post is, was and shall remain, as your one above is, Gibberish.
Gibberish would mean that it wasn't comprehensible. Since you've been responding, it's clearly comprehensible, and therefore not gibberish. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that their arguments are gibberish.
Your response to B simply makes my point. It's okay for people to think about their futures and to make decisions that they think are best for their futures, except when it's a pregnant woman. Then, she's greedy, selfish, and irresponsible for thinking about her future, thinking about her family, thinking about her personal well-being. How dare she think of these things! There is only one thing she should be thinking about, right?
And that would be an example of you and those who share your perspective not really caring about the woman, not really caring about her family and the children she already has, not really caring about what kind of life the potential infant would have. It's not life that you care about at all. It's control.
Gibberish would mean that it wasn't comprehensible. Since you've been responding, it's clearly comprehensible, and therefore not gibberish. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that their arguments are gibberish.
Your response to B simply makes my point. It's okay for people to think about their futures and to make decisions that they think are best for their futures, except when it's a pregnant woman. Then, she's greedy, selfish, and irresponsible for thinking about her future, thinking about her family, thinking about her personal well-being. How dare she think of these things! There is only one thing she should be thinking about, right?
And that would be an example of you and those who share your perspective not really caring about the woman, not really caring about her family and the children she already has, not really caring about what kind of life the potential infant would have. It's not life that you care about at all. It's control.
"It's control"
EXACTLY!
Anti-choiceers just want to control women, restrict them.
The proof is that they consider it "murder" except in the case of rape or incest...well, it either IS murder in ALL cases or it isn't.
So it isn't the "baby" they care about ...just control.
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.
Can someone tell me how Abortion is not the same as murder?
