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.
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.
thanks for your clarification. I appreciate it.
This is a relevant point becuase I was refuting a statement a previous poster made about the medical safety of abortion - outside of the argument of legality, etc.
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
Once unfrozen to further develop, they will "die". They cannot develop any further without being implanted into a uterus. They are the property of whatever woman donated that embryo. She will decide what ultimately happens to that embryo that she created with her eggs. A, say, 24 week fetus survives outside of a woman's body and will further develop without assistance from someone else's body. A frozen embryo cannot. It will cease to exist the second it is unfrozen.
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.
NO ONE should be forced to birth.
Our disagreement lies with our opinions of where life begins.
No one should be allowed to deny life to another human.
Our disagreement lies with our opinions of where life begins.
No one should be allowed to deny life to another human.
the argument isnt where life begins. everyone knows it begins at conception, though some may try to convince themselves otherwise. the argument is whether or not it is justifiable homocide to murder an unwanted baby.
the argument isnt where life begins. everyone knows it begins at conception, though some may try to convince themselves otherwise. the argument is whether or not it is justifiable homocide to murder an unwanted baby.
Can you prove it begins at conception?
No one can... so no one is "trying to convince themselves otherwise".
No one can... so no one is "trying to convince themselves otherwise".
its easily proven. you want to see pictures? it clearly begins at conception. once that happens, the baby starts developing. its a life. there is no doubt whatsoever. people who want to add qualifications like "it has to be able to survive on its own" are just trying to come up with excuses for murdering a baby.
I got to see the ultrasound about 48 hours before aborting. I'm not sorry. I don't regret my decision. In fact, it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
the argument isnt where life begins.
Gee. That statement looks mighty familiar. It's only been told to the same poster at least a couple dozen times by at least a dozen posters by now.
So let's agree that a fetus (meaning offspring) is a human life. So let's move on to the actual disagreement:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
A fetus has a right to life.
A pregnant woman has the right to liberty.
Which one is more important?
To some, the fetus's right to life is more important than the pregnant woman's right to liberty (and sometimes pursuit of happiness).
To others, the woman's right to liberty (and sometimes pursuit of happiness) trumps the fetus's right to life. The reason most often given is that the woman can actually voice her opinion.
To some, the fetus's right to life is more important than the pregnant woman's right to liberty (and sometimes pursuit of happiness).
To others, the woman's right to liberty (and sometimes pursuit of happiness) trumps the fetus's right to life. The reason most often given is that the woman can actually voice her opinion.
seems kind of simple if you put it that way. i cant just go around murdering people because they may impede my liberty or my happiness.
I got to see the ultrasound about 48 hours before aborting. I'm not sorry. I don't regret my decision. In fact, it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Gee. That statement looks mighty familiar. It's only been told to the same poster at least a couple dozen times by at least a dozen posters by now.
So let's agree that a fetus (meaning offspring) is a human life. So let's move on to the actual disagreement:
A fetus has a right to life.
A pregnant woman has the right to liberty.
Which one is more important?
To some, the fetus's right to life is more important than the pregnant woman's right to liberty (and sometimes pursuit of happiness).
To others, the woman's right to liberty (and sometimes pursuit of happiness) trumps the fetus's right to life. The reason most often given is that the woman can actually voice her opinion.
So, does Might make Right? Is it just our ability to do something that makes it moral?
If I am able to steal from you because you are asleep, or unconscious, or in some other way unaware of it or unable to respond, do I have that right?
What difference does a person's ability to respond make?
If I murder someone on the street, they aren't able to respond any longer, so do I have that right?
I really am hard pressed to understand this type of reasoning, so if you could help me out by explaining what difference a person's ability to respond makes. Why does that make it right?
Once unfrozen to further develop, they will "die". They cannot develop any further without being implanted into a uterus. They are the property of whatever woman donated that embryo. She will decide what ultimately happens to that embryo that she created with her eggs. A, say, 24 week fetus survives outside of a woman's body and will further develop without assistance from someone else's body. A frozen embryo cannot. It will cease to exist the second it is unfrozen.
Yes, and if you take someone who needs a ventilator off the ventilator they will die too.
But we understand that that is actually taking active measures to kill them knowingly, as the unfreezing would be also.
The statement I was responding to indicated that it was the dependence on a womans body which caused the unborn to lose it's rights.
So my question was: what if it's not dependent on a woman's body? What if it's is a test tube in a freezer and no woman is 'forced' to carry it when she doesn't want to? Does it have a right to life then?
If the response is 'well it still doesn't have rights', then we see that the argument about the woman's body wasn't the real reason after all.
So what is the real reason that pro-abortion folks refuse to allow the unborn to have a right to life?
It seems that pro-abortion folks shift the argument, moving the goal posts so to speak, when their point is shown to be without merit.
It would be interesting to talk with someone who can elucidate their position with consistency and not shift around.
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.
