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.
No, you want that to be the point. Anti choice activists don't want to examine the actual situation, nor the consequences. You just want lines to be drawn and definitions to be specified. Many open minded people just can't make laws based on that, because there is real life to consider also.
I hope you realize that by outlawing abortions, you're just forcing women to go through illegal channels to get it done anyways. Endangering many young girls and putting even more people in jail. You will literally accomplish nothing.
The Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision noted:
" The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."
The appellant is the pro-abortion side. The court notes that if the unborn is found to be a person, then no 'right' to abortion would be forthcoming. The case would 'collapse'.
(The cowardly reason they cite for avoiding making a finding on this issue is that no other court had previously ruled on the issue. "On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. ")
So if the unborn is a living human being, he must have the protection of life.
That IS the point.
Unless you want to argue that a 'living human being' is not always a 'person'.
You have another Supreme Court decision that will support you on that one.
It's the 1858 Dred Scott decision which ruled that blacks were not 'persons' under the Constitution, and thus could be treated as mere property.
I've done plenty of research on the "facts". You should really educate yourself further on this matter. Childbirth is statistically far more dangerous than abortion. 10 times more dangerous in fact.
Abortion is a VERY safe medical procedure. VERY few women die after a legal abortion. 4-11 a year.
Get "In the Know": Safety of Abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html - broken link)
I support abortion as an option if the mother's life truly is in imminent danger.
I think most pro-life people would agree with that, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Can you clarify it for me please? I would really like to understand what you are saying.
If the unborn is no more than a wart or a mole that has no human life of it's own, why the hand wringing?
If you can show me without a doubt that the unborn is not a distinct living human being, I would be a big abortion advocate.
Really, I would.
Show me that the unborn is nothing more than a 'part of the woman's body'.
It's gonna be tough because the unborn has it's own distinct DNA from the moment of conception, but at least you can give it a go.
As you said yourself, the unborn as it sown distinct DNA different from the mothers. In all phases of human life cells change and grow. At the moment of conception and implantation the unborn is a distinct human life growing and evolving.
The argument you make is that we pro lifers cant not prove when life begins, however that argument is the basis for our belief that you cant not prove that clump of cells is not an growing evolving human.
In fact we do have the proof its a growing evolving human in that if the unborn is not killed it will be a human.
So as I have stated several times on this thread. Most pro abortionists concede the unborn is a human in the third trimester. So we both agree that third term abortions should be stopped as we define the unborn as a life.
The difference in our sided lies only in at what point we declare the unborn human life. Pro life does not use an arbitrary point to declare it life, pr choice wants to use a magic point in development to declare the unborn life. So most pro choicers and pro life ers only disagree on where the unborn is declared life. Pro choicers IMHO take an arbitrary point so they can use it a shield to protect them from guilt. Pro lifers take that shield down and IMHO believe they are protecting our most innocent from death.
Neither side has any proof of when life begins, so pro lifers rake the safest course in protecting the unborn, Pro choicers take the most arbitrary point to shield themselves from guilt.
As you said yourself, the unborn as it sown distinct DNA different from the mothers. In all phases of human life cells change and grow. At the moment of conception and implantation the unborn is a distinct human life growing and evolving.
The argument you make is that we pro lifers cant not prove when life begins, however that argument is the basis for our belief that you cant not prove that clump of cells is not an growing evolving human.
In fact we do have the proof its a growing evolving human in that if the unborn is not killed it will be a human.
So as I have stated several times on this thread. Most pro abortionists concede the unborn is a human in the third trimester. So we both agree that third term abortions should be stopped as we define the unborn as a life.
The difference in our sided lies only in at what point we declare the unborn human life. Pro life does not use an arbitrary point to declare it life, pr choice wants to use a magic point in development to declare the unborn life. So most pro choicers and pro life ers only disagree on where the unborn is declared life. Pro choicers IMHO take an arbitrary point so they can use it a shield to protect them from guilt. Pro lifers take that shield down and IMHO believe they are protecting our most innocent from death.
Neither side has any proof of when life begins, so pro lifers rake the safest course in protecting the unborn, Pro choicers take the most arbitrary point to shield themselves from guilt.
Biologically the unborn shows evidence of life from the moment of conception.
The same criteria used to determine if any other organism is alive (respiration, metabolism, reproduction, etc) are all performed by the unborn from the first.
So if a person believes that humans are no more than animals (i.e. there is no 'spirit' or 'soul') then you would have to concede that the unborn is as alive as it's going to get. If all humans are is a biological machine, then it's fully alive at conception.
So a true materialist/atheist would really have no basis for claiming that the unborn isn't alive or that it differs from you or I in any substantial biological way. It's as living as we are.
As you said yourself, the unborn as it sown distinct DNA different from the mothers. In all phases of human life cells change and grow. At the moment of conception and implantation the unborn is a distinct human life growing and evolving.
The argument you make is that we pro lifers cant not prove when life begins, however that argument is the basis for our belief that you cant not prove that clump of cells is not an growing evolving human.
In fact we do have the proof its a growing evolving human in that if the unborn is not killed it will be a human.
So as I have stated several times on this thread. Most pro abortionists concede the unborn is a human in the third trimester. So we both agree that third term abortions should be stopped as we define the unborn as a life.
The difference in our sided lies only in at what point we declare the unborn human life. Pro life does not use an arbitrary point to declare it life, pr choice wants to use a magic point in development to declare the unborn life. So most pro choicers and pro life ers only disagree on where the unborn is declared life. Pro choicers IMHO take an arbitrary point so they can use it a shield to protect them from guilt. Pro lifers take that shield down and IMHO believe they are protecting our most innocent from death.
Neither side has any proof of when life begins, so pro lifers rake the safest course in protecting the unborn, Pro choicers take the most arbitrary point to shield themselves from guilt.
Third term abortions are illegal except in the case of severe fetal defect, or danger to the mothers life. There are only 2 doctors left in the country that even perform them.
To me - it is a life when it can survive outside of my body. Until then, my rights trump the rights of the potential life.
I was responding to a previous post stating that abortion kills women, and is more dangerous than childbirth.
From a strictly medical standpoint, abortion is a very safe procedure, incredibly safer than childbirth.
That was my point - responding to a previous poster.
Ok, but because it's 'safe' for the mother is really no justification for abortion on demand, is it?
After all, shooting someone is 'safe' for the shooter.
Since both pro-life and pro-abortion sides agree largely that preserving the mother's life (if it is in imminent danger) is an allowable use of abortion, talking about it's relative 'safety' compared with childbirth really proves nothing, does it?
Again, I'm really trying to understand why this is a relevant point.
The number of abortions to save the mother's life in the US *may* be in the dozens each year, while the number of abortions overall is in the hundreds of thousands.
So, IMHO, arguing about 'safety' and preserving the mother's life is a nonissue since there really is no disagreement about the need for this small number of abortions.
it is a life when it can survive outside of my body
ok , so fertility clinics have test tube babies frozen right now, for potential implantation later.
They are not impinging on any woman's freedom, since no one is being 'forced' to carry them.
They are in effect surviving outside of any unwilling woman's body.
Should their lives be protected by law? Should it be illegal to destroy these who are not affecting any woman's 'freedom'?
I hope you can give me a response to this. (I've never had a pro-abortion person who was willing to answer this straight up, and give a reasonable answer to it.) thanks muchos
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.
