[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Not even necessarily a miscarriage- sometimes the zygote fails to implant.
If we’re going to play the ‘slippery slope’ game, then you might as well consider masturbation to be murder.[/quote]
WRT masterbation being murder/sperm. This is fallacious and you know it. Again please leave the fallacious pseudo argument at the door.
Fair enough, but if the decision is economic or moral, it still doesn’t follow that anybody else has a say in it. I might think that it’s better for a child to be poor than never to have been born, but I don’t get to tell that to the mother.
The question to murder somebody walking along the road is a moral question, do you not have a say in it? Perhaps not because you are not inside the mind of the perpetrator, but the question at hand is, does society have a say in that ethical question? Societies (meaning “mass members of society”) routinely give say in ethical and moral questions, even those in which many members of the society are not facing the ethical choice themselves. It happens all the time, in all cultures, across thousands and thousands of years.
You have the burden of proof to show why 5000+ years of this should be in this one case prohibited.
The right to choose when and where to have children. Please don’t ask me to explain the obvious.
The question for you is–does or does not the decision to have sex between two consenting adults constitute the right to choose? It obviously prima facie does. If not I would like to hear why not. And don’t bother bringing up rape because I will grant that premise to you–but more importantly it accounts for a miniscule part of the whole.
your decision to have sex, and to acknowledge the risks
your decision to use or not use protection, and to acknowledge the risks.
These are voluntary decisions made by two human beings in what essentially amounts to a social contract, either very short term (i.e. one night stand) or long term. But they are mutual and voluntary, which constitutes a choice.[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For the proabortionists, why is it unreasonable for the anti-abortionist to ask that the choice when and where to have kids be made before a life is created?[/quote]
It isn’t unreasonable to ask, but do you think it works? I think it only works on people who wouldn’t have an abortion in the first place.[/quote]
From my perspective it works. My goal isn’t to reduce unwanted pregnancy. That is an individual responsibility. However, it is my goal to end the mass genocide of a demographic incapable of defending themselves.
People will always have “Ut Oh,” babies. I don’t think a mulligan is fair to the unborn baby.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
but what we cannot have is a situation where we decide, on a blanket basis, that abortion is illegal, or unavailable, because that constitutes a breach of basic human rights.[/quote]
Just lol. Logic, you have zero.
So let me get this straight, and just so you know, pittbull has ignored this question a few times himself, so, it is a “woman’s right” to choose whether she carries a baby to term, correct?
Well, if the aborted fetus was female, wasn’t she just denied her “right” to choose?
Let’s for the moment forget that the aborted fetus was denied its right ot life, and pay attention to its “right” to choose. How can an aborted fetus keep its “right” to choose if it is terminated long before it even reaches puberty?
Also, if abortion becomes illegal, people need to get used to the idea of increased members of society being on food stamps and other government support. The true economic ramifications of such a decision have to be considered. You can’t be ethically consistent if you fight to protect the fetus and then jump to the other side of the fence regarding government support once the child is born…[/quote]
Not only are you making massive assumptions about people’s positions here, but you know what, you are right.
Poverty is bad, so we should just go around to the poor neighborhoods and slaughter all the people there. Their life isn’t worth living, you’ve implied you believe that to be so, so end it for them. Why only when they are babies, we should do it now. We all know so much better than they do, that poverty is awful and a horrid life, so let us just put them out of their misery…
Sounds great.
Where do I sign up?
Economic ramifications? Good god… Yes, dollars are more important than the lives of people. Yeah!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Yup, and outside an abortion clinic, it’s illegal to kill a human in the fetal stage. Otherwise explain to my why Scott Peterson is serving time for double murder, when he killed his pregnant wife.[/quote]
I am guessing he is guilty of the murder of his wife an unborn child .
[/quote]
Look up the case. He is in prison for double murder, look up why…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You have a better case with Castro punching the mother in the stomach to case the baby to abort. I do not know if you notice or not but once you are deemed public enemy regardless of guilt (1) they will get you with everything . It just goes to show you how good our justice system actually works (EYE ROLL) [/quote]
You started delving into legal precedence, both the Scott Peterson case and the Kermit Gosnell case shows legal precedent for acknowledging the fetal human as human life. Otherwise neither would be in prison for murder.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Pro-choice and pro-abortion are not necessarily the same thing, just as anti-abortion and pro-life are not necessarily the same thing. [/quote]
No, they are exactly the same thing. You are for allowing a verifiable human life to be killed. It doesn’t much matter if you are militant about it, or casual, your still for it and you are still culpable for it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You have a better case with Castro punching the mother in the stomach to case the baby to abort. I do not know if you notice or not but once you are deemed public enemy regardless of guilt (1) they will get you with everything . It just goes to show you how good our justice system actually works (EYE ROLL) [/quote]
You started delving into legal precedence, both the Scott Peterson case and the Kermit Gosnell case shows legal precedent for acknowledging the fetal human as human life. Otherwise neither would be in prison for murder.[/quote]
I DO THINK people want to take away her right to choose , [/quote]
What if the aborted fetus is female?
Wasn’t she just denied her “right to choose”?
[/quote]
bump, more ignored tough questions. [/quote]
LULZ you ask ridiculous questions , there is no difference if it is a boy or girl .
[/quote]
Still can’t answer that question can you?
Horrible deflection btw…[/quote]
You’re dealing with people who cannot tell the difference between a sperm and a human life. It’s what you get when you support an indefensible position. Name calling, derogatory avoidance, red herrings and strawmen. Pittbull said is all when he said this on the previous page:
"I am not talking about best case scenario . I am talking about reality . I talking about drug addiction , poverty, abuse and many other scenarios that could make death a better option for a child than living
If, by their opinion, the situation in which a child can be born in is not a good one, the child is better off dead. That’s the end all be all of their position.
Their position can be defined as a mercy killing. Better to be dead than born into a bad situation. That’s really the end all be all of the proabortion movement. They physically cannot wrap their brains around the intrinsic value of human life. It has to be an ideal life.
I wouldn’t doubt they secretly extend this same ‘value system’ to all life. If you cannot help the poor and suffering, better they be put out of their misery.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You have a better case with Castro punching the mother in the stomach to case the baby to abort. I do not know if you notice or not but once you are deemed public enemy regardless of guilt (1) they will get you with everything . It just goes to show you how good our justice system actually works (EYE ROLL) [/quote]
You started delving into legal precedence, both the Scott Peterson case and the Kermit Gosnell case shows legal precedent for acknowledging the fetal human as human life. Otherwise neither would be in prison for murder.[/quote]
Are you aware legal precedence works both ways ?
[/quote]
But it’s the cases that where preterm human life is considered as such that support the pro-life stance and it’s those cases that will eventually be taken into consideration at the federal level when the time comes.
You are aware that Norma McCorvey a.k.a. Jane Roe, is against abortion and has been fighting for years to have the case on which she was based, overturned. Further, she never had an abortion, nor was actually seeking to have one at the time of the hearing. Oh, she used to be pro-abortion, but she has since seen it for what it is, having worked in the industry and has fought every day to reverse the course from that fateful day.
If Jane Roe can change her mind and see abortion for what it is, I believe anybody can if they open their eyes and let the facts lead where they may.
But it takes a value system that regards human life as more valuable than it’s circumstances.
If, by their opinion, the situation in which a child can be born in is not a good one, the child is better off dead. That’s the end all be all of their position.
[/quote]
It’s like, they know more about other people’s lives than those other people, and should be put in charge of their life choices…
I’m glad I’m not arrogant enough to actually believe I understand how anyone else lives, or their quality of life.
But it’s the cases that where preterm human life is considered as such that support the pro-life stance and it’s those cases that will eventually be taken into consideration at the federal level when the time comes.
You are aware that Norma McCorvey a.k.a. Jane Roe, is against abortion and has been fighting for years to have the case on which she was based, overturned. Further, she never had an abortion, nor was actually seeking to have one at the time of the hearing. Oh, she used to be pro-abortion, but she has since seen it for what it is, having worked in the industry and has fought every day to reverse the course from that fateful day.
If Jane Roe can change her mind and see abortion for what it is, I believe anybody can if they open their eyes and let the facts lead where they may.
But it takes a value system that regards human life as more valuable than it’s circumstances. [/quote]
It may become law , I do agree . But I can not see an up side .
I personally do not think it matters one bit that Roe has had a come to Jesus moment.
You’re dealing with people who cannot tell the difference between a sperm and a human life. [/quote]
I do not think this is the case at all , I tink every one of us can tell the difference . I believe it is you and the others that can not tell the difference between a zygote and a child
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Pro-choice and pro-abortion are not necessarily the same thing, just as anti-abortion and pro-life are not necessarily the same thing. [/quote]
No, they are exactly the same thing. You are for allowing a verifiable human life to be killed. It doesn’t much matter if you are militant about it, or casual, your still for it and you are still culpable for it.[/quote]
No. Allowing someone the right to choose does not mean you support their choice. And verifiable human life does not equal human. Besides that, most pro-life people have plenty of exceptions to just how pro they are regarding life. Do they support the death penalty? Do they support war and/or warfare in which innocent people will be killed? Should Sophie not have made a choice? You can try and find some hypocrisy with someone who is ant-abortion yet pro-choice but all sides could be accused of being hypocritical.