Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

I would just like to add a personal amendment. The right to life is a natural right. That right comes from each individual’s humanity even if the source of humanity is not a creator. I’ve demonstrated this above several times.
One human cannot deny the right to life of another human without simultaneously denying their own right to life(and by extension liberty and property).

[/quote]

If this is true then it also applies to the fetus. That is, it doesn’t have the right to forcefully extract the life force of its mother without permission and by doing so it relinquishes its right to life.

Again, there’s a difference between killing and not keeping alive. The fetus is otherwise dead unless kept alive. This is not the case with a birthed human.[/quote]

Nonsense. This “life-force” you are referring to can be quantified. It is the property of the mother, namely the nutrients in her blood. Your body is a piece of property, your most fundamental piece. The right to life is the right not to be killed by the actions of others. There is no mystical “life-force” the baby is taking. Not anymore then your life force is in your blood, bile, or semen. That notions is very backwards and hearkens back to the times when people would be bled by leaches in barber shops and Edo-era samurai would stop themselves from cumming in order to preserve their “life-force”.
The child absolutely has the right to live in the environment the mother created it in. It has that right in the the same way the mother has the right not to be forcibly removed from the Earth’s oxygen rich atmosphere.[/quote]

I’m not referring to “life force” as some ambiguous energy. I’m talking about her literal blood and everything in it. I actually mentioned this specifically in another post. Please keep up.

So if I gave you $1 a day for a certain amount of time, then I decided not to and you went broke, is it my fault you went broke? Does the fact that I, at one point, gave you a portion of my money everyday entitle you to that money for as long as YOU decide? Is it my fault you can’t financially support yourself without me?

If the answer is no, then why is this different when it comes to blood?

182

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

Physically removing an adult from, food, water, or oxygen and placing them in a container with out either is obviously homicide. The unborn human requires the uterus to survive in the same way a born human requires oxygen, food, and water to survive. To remove an unborn human from the mother’s uterus with the intention of discarding it is most definitely homicide(KILLing a human). [/quote]

I’m not talking about putting them in a container where they can’t get those things. What are you talking about?

The analogy was you merely stop supporting them and leave them to their own doings. In both cases they die, not because you killed them but but because they couldn’t manage on their own.

Lets look at this another way. Lets say I give you $1 a day every day. There’s no contract stating I must do this, I just do. If I decide to stop giving you this daily dollar and you eventually go broke is it my fault you’re broke? Do I owe you that money? Obviously not, so why is that the case with blood?[/quote]

What do you think abortion is? The unborn human is removed from the source of nutrients the mother placed it in and discarded in a container.
You don’t have to STATE anything in a voluntary transaction. There’s no such thing as "just do"ing something. You volunteered the dollar each time. You received in return whatever you valued higher than that dollar. It could be self-esteem, happiness, the realization of an experiment etc… It doesn’t have to be something tangible. The fact that you acted voluntarily, by definition, means you acted to gain something of more value than the dollar.
There’s nothing inherently different with blood. You can donate the same blood and nutrients voluntarily at any time at a blood bank.
However, the mother’s own actions placed a life in her uterus without any corresponding action by the unborn human. By definition, the human could not have acted because it did not exist at the time of the action. It exists exclusively as a result of the actions of the parents.
The man receiving the dollar each day(or the diseased man in your prior example) decides to act and take the dollar. He is as much responsible for the actions leading to his “dependency” on the exchange with the other person. The unborn human has no such complicity in their own creation. The unborn did not enter into a contract for its life. It’s life was given without any obligation to the parents and therefore it cannot be killed without having voluntarily relinquished its life. As I demonstrated before, forcing it out of the womb while it depends(by the actions of the parents) on the uterus to survive is homicide.

183

technically, an abortion doesn’t prevent the fetus to get nutrients from the mother blood. It’s not how it works.

It kills it
(medical abortion use the direct toxicity of antimetabolite drugs, surgical abortion usually destroy the fetus before its expulsion)

so, i’m afraid that this clever argument is basically irrelevant.

184

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

If it is a person, killing it is murder. That’s the point. It’s not about right to sponge off another person. By this logic Casey Anthony had very right to whack her baby because the little parasite was sponging off of her and had no right to do that.
Hell, by that logic we can just kill all welfare recipients because they are sponging off of all of us to sustain their existence.

185

[quote]kamui wrote:

technically, an abortion doesn’t prevent the fetus to get nutrients from the mother blood. It’s not how it works.

It kills it
(medical abortion use the direct toxicity of antimetabolite drugs, surgical abortion usually destroy the fetus before its expulsion)

so, i’m afraid that this clever argument is basically irrelevant.

[/quote]

Damn, brilliant!

186

Hey T2, bet you can’t watch this video and keep making your silly “property rights” argument in favor of abortion. I doubt you’ll even be able to even watch it in the first place, though. Pro-abortion folks hardly ever can. You should see, really see, what it is you are talking about. It’s a little different than your benign (and fallacious) metaphor.

http://www.silentscream.org/

187

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

Physically removing an adult from, food, water, or oxygen and placing them in a container with out either is obviously homicide. The unborn human requires the uterus to survive in the same way a born human requires oxygen, food, and water to survive. To remove an unborn human from the mother’s uterus with the intention of discarding it is most definitely homicide(KILLing a human). [/quote]

I’m not talking about putting them in a container where they can’t get those things. What are you talking about?

The analogy was you merely stop supporting them and leave them to their own doings. In both cases they die, not because you killed them but but because they couldn’t manage on their own.

Lets look at this another way. Lets say I give you $1 a day every day. There’s no contract stating I must do this, I just do. If I decide to stop giving you this daily dollar and you eventually go broke is it my fault you’re broke? Do I owe you that money? Obviously not, so why is that the case with blood?[/quote]

What do you think abortion is? The unborn human is removed from the source of nutrients the mother placed it in and discarded in a container.
You don’t have to STATE anything in a voluntary transaction. There’s no such thing as "just do"ing something. You volunteered the dollar each time. You received in return whatever you valued higher than that dollar. It could be self-esteem, happiness, the realization of an experiment etc… It doesn’t have to be something tangible. The fact that you acted voluntarily, by definition, means you acted to gain something of more value than the dollar.
There’s nothing inherently different with blood. You can donate the same blood and nutrients voluntarily at any time at a blood bank.
However, the mother’s own actions placed a life in her uterus without any corresponding action by the unborn human. By definition, the human could not have acted because it did not exist at the time of the action. It exists exclusively as a result of the actions of the parents.
The man receiving the dollar each day(or the diseased man in your prior example) decides to act and take the dollar. He is as much responsible for the actions leading to his “dependency” on the exchange with the other person. The unborn human has no such complicity in their own creation. The unborn did not enter into a contract for its life. It’s life was given without any obligation to the parents and therefore it cannot be killed without having voluntarily relinquished its life. As I demonstrated before, forcing it out of the womb while it depends(by the actions of the parents) on the uterus to survive is homicide.[/quote]

Either a fetus is a person and must be treated as such, or it is not and therefore shouldn’t be. A born child can change locations without dieing. It’s not the mothers fault biology didn’t better equipped a fetus to survive.

Does she not have say over who feeds of her own blood? Yes the child doesn’t consciously choose whether or not to accept the blood as we could, but it does. That doesn’t make you entitled to receive the blood for as long as you choose to a born person, so why the double standard?

There’s no contractual agreement between the mother and the fetus. How they came to this situation is irrelevant, the point is the fetus is not entitled to the mothers blood. If anything I would say that the mother creating the fetus makes her responsible for the life, therefore it’s her call whether she keeps it or not.

188

[quote]kamui wrote:

technically, an abortion doesn’t prevent the fetus to get nutrients from the mother blood. It’s not how it works.

It kills it
(medical abortion use the direct toxicity of antimetabolite drugs, surgical abortion usually destroy the fetus before its expulsion)

so, i’m afraid that this clever argument is basically irrelevant.

[/quote]

Would you prefer that doctors leave the extracted fetus to “starve” to death? It will die either way, this is simply the more humane way of doing it. A mercy killing, if you will. This doesn’t entitle the fetus to the mother’s blood.

There are two factors at work here.

  1. Removing the fetus from its blood supply (not homicide)
  2. Killing the fetus (homicide)

If you are against homicide in this scenario, then you could argue that docters must carefully extract the fetus and let it die of it’s own inability to survive, but that’s about it.

189

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

If it is a person, killing it is murder. That’s the point. It’s not about right to sponge off another person. By this logic Casey Anthony had very right to whack her baby because the little parasite was sponging off of her and had no right to do that.
Hell, by that logic we can just kill all welfare recipients because they are sponging off of all of us to sustain their existence.
[/quote]

Your analogy doesn’t work. I’m talking about not supporting the unborn baby. The born analogy would be if Casey Anthony gave up her child to some orphanage. There’s a difference between killing and not supporting. Whether or not the child dies after this is not the mothers responsibility, she’s given the child up. She’s not killing the child, it is dieing of its own inability to survive (or by the hands of a doctor, but that would be the doctor’s doing, not the Mom’s).

190

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey T2, bet you can’t watch this video and keep making your silly “property rights” argument in favor of abortion. I doubt you’ll even be able to even watch it in the first place, though. Pro-abortion folks hardly ever can. You should see, really see, what it is you are talking about. It’s a little different than your benign (and fallacious) metaphor.

http://www.silentscream.org/[/quote]

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”. I’ll check out the video in a bit.

192

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

If it is a person, killing it is murder. That’s the point. It’s not about right to sponge off another person. By this logic Casey Anthony had very right to whack her baby because the little parasite was sponging off of her and had no right to do that.
Hell, by that logic we can just kill all welfare recipients because they are sponging off of all of us to sustain their existence.
[/quote]

Your analogy doesn’t work. I’m talking about not supporting the unborn baby. The born analogy would be if Casey Anthony gave up her child to some orphanage. There’s a difference between killing and not supporting. Whether or not the child dies after this is not the mothers responsibility, she’s given the child up. She’s not killing the child, it is dieing of its own inability to survive (or by the hands of a doctor, but that would be the doctor’s doing, not the Mom’s).[/quote]

It’s your analogy not mine, first. Second, if you don’t ‘support’ a new born, or even a toddler it will fucking die. Guess what? That’s murder.
The only way to ‘not support’ a fetal human is to kill it. If you if you cut the umbilical cord and allow the child to die you not only kill the child, but you can kill the bitch mother too. If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, then under the law it’s murder.

There is an abortion doctor on trial for murder because he did that very thing. He accidentally allow a child to be born alive, so then he suffocated it to finish the job. He’s not on trial for medical malpractice, he’s on trial for murder.

This strain of logic is what I call an epic fail.

193

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey T2, bet you can’t watch this video and keep making your silly “property rights” argument in favor of abortion. I doubt you’ll even be able to even watch it in the first place, though. Pro-abortion folks hardly ever can. You should see, really see, what it is you are talking about. It’s a little different than your benign (and fallacious) metaphor.

http://www.silentscream.org/[/quote]

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”. I’ll check out the video in a bit.[/quote]

Pro choice is pro abortion. If you think abortion is right, then there is no wrong in it. Saying ‘I wouldn’t have an abortion but I support other people’s ‘right’ to do it’ is intellectually dishonest. Because on one hand, you are admitting there is something wrong with it, on the other your saying there is nothing wrong with it. It cannot be both, it’s either right or it’s wrong. It basically means your to chicken to take a stand and make a stand.

194

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”.[/quote]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

195

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

If it is a person, killing it is murder. That’s the point. It’s not about right to sponge off another person. By this logic Casey Anthony had very right to whack her baby because the little parasite was sponging off of her and had no right to do that.
Hell, by that logic we can just kill all welfare recipients because they are sponging off of all of us to sustain their existence.
[/quote]

Your analogy doesn’t work. I’m talking about not supporting the unborn baby. The born analogy would be if Casey Anthony gave up her child to some orphanage. There’s a difference between killing and not supporting. Whether or not the child dies after this is not the mothers responsibility, she’s given the child up. She’s not killing the child, it is dieing of its own inability to survive (or by the hands of a doctor, but that would be the doctor’s doing, not the Mom’s).[/quote]

It’s your analogy not mine, first. Second, if you don’t ‘support’ a new born, or even a toddler it will fucking die. Guess what? That’s murder.
The only way to ‘not support’ a fetal human is to kill it. If you if you cut the umbilical cord and allow the child to die you not only kill the child, but you can kill the bitch mother too. If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, then under the law it’s murder.

There is an abortion doctor on trial for murder because he did that very thing. He accidentally allow a child to be born alive, so then he suffocated it to finish the job. He’s not on trial for medical malpractice, he’s on trial for murder.

This strain of logic is what I call an epic fail.
[/quote]

… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.

You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?

If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.

Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.

196

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey T2, bet you can’t watch this video and keep making your silly “property rights” argument in favor of abortion. I doubt you’ll even be able to even watch it in the first place, though. Pro-abortion folks hardly ever can. You should see, really see, what it is you are talking about. It’s a little different than your benign (and fallacious) metaphor.

http://www.silentscream.org/[/quote]

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”. I’ll check out the video in a bit.[/quote]

Pro choice is pro abortion. If you think abortion is right, then there is no wrong in it. Saying ‘I wouldn’t have an abortion but I support other people’s ‘right’ to do it’ is intellectually dishonest. Because on one hand, you are admitting there is something wrong with it, on the other your saying there is nothing wrong with it. It cannot be both, it’s either right or it’s wrong. It basically means your to chicken to take a stand and make a stand.[/quote]

It’s “intellectually dishonest” to not prefer something, but understand that others do prefer it? If I don’t want pickles, but I’m okay with other people wanting pickles, am I being intellectually dishonest? I take back what I said about you possibly being a competent debater. I see now the reason you make more assertions than arguments is because this is what you bring to the table. =/

197

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”.[/quote]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. [/quote]

I’m “pro-abortion” in the same way you’re “anti-freedom”. You wouldn’t consider your position “anti-freedom” would you? “Pro-abortion” is like saying you lean towards abortion. That’s not my stance, my stance is individuals should have the right to make their own minds up. Not letting them is rather “anti-freedom” of you as far as I’m concerned, but abortion debates would go nowhere if we don’t first agree on our terms so for the sake of argument it is convention that I call you “pro-life” and you call me “pro-choice”.

If you don’t like this, fine, you call me “pro-abortion” and I’ll call you “anti-freedom”. No problem.

198

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”.[/quote]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. [/quote]

I’m “pro-abortion” in the same way you’re “anti-freedom”. You wouldn’t consider your position “anti-freedom” would you? “Pro-abortion” is like saying you lean towards abortion. That’s not my stance, my stance is individuals should have the right to make their own minds up. Not letting them is rather “anti-freedom” of you as far as I’m concerned, but abortion debates would go nowhere if we don’t first agree on our terms so for the sake of argument it is convention that I call you “pro-life” and you call me “pro-choice”.

If you don’t like this, fine, you call me “pro-abortion” and I’ll call you “anti-freedom”. No problem. [/quote]

No.My label accurately describes my beliefs. I believe that a life should not be taken, and that is where my concern lays. If you want to call yourself pro-freedom, I guess that’s cool, too, but be prepared to do a lot of extra explaining every time you do.

199

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]

Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.

It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).

If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).

[/quote]

You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.

[/quote]

If it is a person, killing it is murder. That’s the point. It’s not about right to sponge off another person. By this logic Casey Anthony had very right to whack her baby because the little parasite was sponging off of her and had no right to do that.
Hell, by that logic we can just kill all welfare recipients because they are sponging off of all of us to sustain their existence.
[/quote]

Your analogy doesn’t work. I’m talking about not supporting the unborn baby. The born analogy would be if Casey Anthony gave up her child to some orphanage. There’s a difference between killing and not supporting. Whether or not the child dies after this is not the mothers responsibility, she’s given the child up. She’s not killing the child, it is dieing of its own inability to survive (or by the hands of a doctor, but that would be the doctor’s doing, not the Mom’s).[/quote]

It’s your analogy not mine, first. Second, if you don’t ‘support’ a new born, or even a toddler it will fucking die. Guess what? That’s murder.
The only way to ‘not support’ a fetal human is to kill it. If you if you cut the umbilical cord and allow the child to die you not only kill the child, but you can kill the bitch mother too. If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, then under the law it’s murder.

There is an abortion doctor on trial for murder because he did that very thing. He accidentally allow a child to be born alive, so then he suffocated it to finish the job. He’s not on trial for medical malpractice, he’s on trial for murder.

This strain of logic is what I call an epic fail.
[/quote]

… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
[/quote]
Your the one who had the justification for her actions. I was just merely showing you an example of your stated beliefs.

Taking somebody who is recovering on life support, off of life support is murder. Someone who is already dead except for the life support is not. It’s not the same thing. You depended on your parents for years, hell you may still depend on them. If they with drew support and you died from it, they would be charged with child neglect and murder. Parents ARE responsible for the lives of their children in all phases of development. Neglecting to sustain a child’s life is the same as pulling the trigger.
Further, to simply deny a fetus it’s modus for survival is actually more cruel than chopping it up and sucking it out. It then dies slowly…How horrible.

That is flat retarded. If you have to sodomize logic to this degree, it’s inherent flaws are self evident.

[quote]
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]

So by that logic he should have left the baby to just die on it’s own? That’s even worse.
He did that too.

200

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

It’s “pro-choice”, not “pro-abortion”.[/quote]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. [/quote]

I’m “pro-abortion” in the same way you’re “anti-freedom”. You wouldn’t consider your position “anti-freedom” would you? “Pro-abortion” is like saying you lean towards abortion. That’s not my stance, my stance is individuals should have the right to make their own minds up. Not letting them is rather “anti-freedom” of you as far as I’m concerned, but abortion debates would go nowhere if we don’t first agree on our terms so for the sake of argument it is convention that I call you “pro-life” and you call me “pro-choice”.

If you don’t like this, fine, you call me “pro-abortion” and I’ll call you “anti-freedom”. No problem. [/quote]

You are pro-abortion and if being against murder is a anti freedom stance then that’s what I am.
See, you are in fact for abortion. I am merely against the killing of human life. Nobody has the freedom to murder except expectant mothers.
The life is either human or not. Either killing or allowing said child to die is murder. No amount tortured logic is going to change that very simple fact.