Are Unborn Children Human?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[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. =/[/quote]

You feel it’s not right to kill your own kid, but you think it’s ok for others to kill theirs? Yeah that’s a very progressive stance on the basis that it’s ok to allow humans to die by denying humans the sustenance they need to survive. We’re not talking about pickles we’re talking about killing or not killing humans.

202

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… 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.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.

203

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Do you understand how perspective works? Of course YOU think your own label accurately describes your position… it’s YOUR position! You say you’re pro-life because you don’t want this life to end, I say you’re anti-freedom because you want to make everyone’s else’s decision on what parasites they keep alive for them.

Likewise, you view me as pro-abortion because I have no problem with abortion. I would say I’m pro-choice, because literally speaking I’m in favour of a woman’s right to choose.

204

[quote]pat wrote:
Your the one who had the justification for her actions. I was just merely showing you an example of your stated beliefs.
[/quote]

Then it’s still your example, Pat. YOU came up with it. rolls eyes

Whether they will eventually get off life support or not is irrelevant because in both cases the person is dead without it at the time. Would you be okay with being forced to pay for someone else’s life support if you don’t want to? Would you be okay with continuing to care for this person for the next two decades or so? And if at any time you gave up custody over this person (self-reliant or not) and they died shortly after, are you now a murderer?

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

If I kick my child out at 16 and instead of getting a job and supporting himself he dies, did I kill him? I’ve surrendered responsibility over him and he simply couldn’t get it together. It’s not as though I stopped him from managing. If we had machines that you could hook up a fetus to after being aborted that would allow it to continue normal growth, would you be opposed to abortion?

[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.[/quote]

Like I said before, I’m in favour of mercy killing in this situation. It’s still irrelevant, however, because the mother has no part in this. She’s already given up responsibility over the child and placed it’s life into someone else’s hands.

205

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[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. =/[/quote]

You feel it’s not right to kill your own kid, but you think it’s ok for others to kill theirs? Yeah that’s a very progressive stance on the basis that it’s ok to allow humans to die by denying humans the sustenance they need to survive. We’re not talking about pickles we’re talking about killing or not killing humans.[/quote]

Not aborting my child is my personal preference. I’m not of the belief that everyone else on the planet should conform to my personal preferences. That’s retarded.

206

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… 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.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]

Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit.

208

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… 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.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]

Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]

So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?

Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?

209

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
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.[/quote]

How can a person that didn’t will themselves alive force the mother that had sex and actually created the person to support their life. Do you miss this casual link?

Yes, and willfully killing them is not “not keeping it alive.”

Bad metaphor. If I kicked my son and daughter out and as a result they both starved to death, yes I killed them. I am responsible for my actions.

210

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… 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.[/quote]

You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]

Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]

So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?

Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]

I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage.

211

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
The fetus is otherwise dead unless kept alive.[/quote]

This doesn’t make sense. Are you saying because of the unborn baby’s reliance and dependence on the mother for sustenance that it’s cool “not keep it alive”?

So, because my 1 month old niece is completely reliant on my sister, it’s cool that my sister just lets her baby sit in the crib and “not keep it alive” by not breast feeding it, not bathing it, not interacting with it, &c.

How about the my one year old (for that matter my two year old), if I just don’t buy food for him, don’t give him his milk, &c.

I’d love to see the face of the judge when someone tries to use that justification…they’d have another thing they could tell the judge…not guilty by mental insanity.

212

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
How can a person that didn’t will themselves alive force the mother that had sex and actually created the person to support their life. Do you miss this casual link?[/quote]

How the two parties ended up in the situation is irrelevant. Unless there is some contractual agreement where the mother agreed to give the child blood for as long as it needs, she is not required to give it blood for as long as it needs.

[quote]
Bad metaphor. If I kicked my son and daughter out and as a result they both starved to death, yes I killed them. I am responsible for my actions.[/quote]

like I said to the guy above, there’s a difference between ignoring your kids and relinquishing custody. By having you child aborted you are relinquishing ownership of it. You could always just ignore that you’re pregnant and start drinking and smoking and all sorts of destructive things, I would agree with you here that this is sick behaviour.

I asked this question to Pat, but I would like you to answer it too. If an abortion could be done in such a way that the fetus could be attached to some machine and continue growing normally, would you have any problem with abortion?

213

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
The fetus is otherwise dead unless kept alive.[/quote]

This doesn’t make sense. Are you saying because of the unborn baby’s reliance and dependence on the mother for sustenance that it’s cool “not keep it alive”?

So, because my 1 month old niece is completely reliant on my sister, it’s cool that my sister just lets her baby sit in the crib and “not keep it alive” by not breast feeding it, not bathing it, not interacting with it, &c.

How about the my one year old (for that matter my two year old), if I just don’t buy food for him, don’t give him his milk, &c.

I’d love to see the face of the judge when someone tries to use that justification…they’d have another thing they could tell the judge…not guilty by mental insanity.

[/quote]

This is where the difference between a born child and an unborn child come into play. They aren’t analogous to each other. A fetus is dead unless kept alive because it is physically attached to the mother. A born child is alive unless killed. Obviously if you keep it from what it needs to remain alive it will die, but it isn’t dependent on you by its physical make up. Again I stress that there is a difference between relinquishing custody and simply ignoring your child.

214

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
How the two parties ended up in the situation is irrelevant. Unless there is some contractual agreement where the mother agreed to give the child blood for as long as it needs, she is not required to give it blood for as long as it needs.[/quote]

I didn’t make a contractual agreement where I agreed to give my child my money for as long as they need. I am not required to give them material support…actually Sheriff Joe Arpaio would be knocking at my door asking for child support/arresting me for attempted murder/murder.

What…when I relinquish custody someone else takes custody of them (usually the mom) and I’m still responsible for my kid’s material needs. If they are adopted by someone else…those people are now responsible for the kid’s material needs. In abortion you actively and willfully kill the child.

That’s not abortion.

215

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
This is where the difference between a born child and an unborn child come into play. They aren’t analogous to each other. A fetus is dead unless kept alive because it is physically attached to the mother.[/quote]

Pretty sure an unborn baby is alive unless it is killed.

So is an unborn baby.

So you’re arguing that because of its dependence on the mother, it is not person?

So, if you’re at a pool by yourself, and a one year old runs from the locker room and it falls in the pool. And, you happen to be the only person there that can save the one year old…its okay “not keep it alive” because it is 100% dependent on you to keep it alive?

Abortion is neither. You kill the child. Either by sucking it into pieces with a tube, or chemically killing it.

216

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not abortion.[/quote]

Okay, hold on a sec. Let’s get our terms down before we go any further. In your own words, what constitues a living thing is and define what abortion is, please and thank you.

217

T2, how’s about you watch that video before continuing? That way we can clear up some of the misconceptions you clearly have about exactly what abortion is and debate a bit more smoothly.

Seriously. Please. Watch the video. The whole thing. I believe it’s just over 10 minutes long.

218

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not abortion.[/quote]

Okay, hold on a sec. Let’s get our terms down before we go any further. In your own words, what constitues a living thing is and define what abortion is, please and thank you.[/quote]

…are you saying that an unborn baby isn’t actually alive? Because I didn’t know this was in a dispute.

219

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That’s not abortion.[/quote]

Okay, hold on a sec. Let’s get our terms down before we go any further. In your own words, what constitues a living thing is and define what abortion is, please and thank you.[/quote]

…are you saying that an unborn baby isn’t actually alive? Because I didn’t know this was in a dispute.[/quote]

It’s not that, it’s just the argument I was about to make may or may not apply depending on how you define these two things.

220

[quote]Cortes wrote:
T2, how’s about you watch that video before continuing? That way we can clear up some of the misconceptions you clearly have about exactly what abortion is and debate a bit more smoothly.

Seriously. Please. Watch the video. The whole thing. I believe it’s just over 10 minutes long. [/quote]

Yeah yeah, I’m watching it now =p