Leftys finally admit to Murder !!!

You'd prefer anarchy?

 

How does condemning corruption amount to a preferance for anarchy?

 

So the baby isnt a person, and the mother can select death for the infant?

If the baby made it into the world and was left on a cold metal table, and no one cared for it, it would die, just the same.

Those who claim a baby is a mere lump of cells, seem to forget they themselves could be described in exactly the same dehumanizing manner.

 

Oh is that what she was doing when she said welfare is taken by force, or that all government spending is unwise?

Good one!

 

Wow, it's amazing what folks will fabricate to try to make an argument. Well, actually I'm not that surprised.

 

Are under the delusion that I am arguing that doctors shouldn't attempt to keep fetuses alive?

 

To engage in distortion, is to distort one`s own world. The problem is yours.

 

No, once the zygote has developed into an embryo, and the embryo into a fetus, and the fetus, after at least a trimester, has achieved personhood, terminating the pregnancy via an induced abortion becomes a legal issue in which the woman could be liable.

You might not, but you are speaking for yourself I assume, and not attempting to impose such sentiments upon others.

If you were presented with such a minute amalgam under a microscope, I seriously doubt you would be able to identify whether it is even human. Yes, we are all fortuitous confluences of atoms, but most persons can recognize when personhood has been achieved. Sentience and viability are essential attributes in that determination.

A blastocyst is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. It may contain the potential, but there are millions upon millions of spontaneous, early stage abortions that even the most extreme religionists do not regard as their god murdering babies.

You are free to entertain whatever notions you wish. You are not authorized to employ the coercive power of the State to impose them upon everyone else.

That appears to be your intent.

 

Figures you'd consider one of the criteria for personhood the ability to pay taxes.

 

Under Iran's theocratic rule, abortion is legal only in cases where they life of the mother is in danger or when the country's Legal Medical Organization diagnoses the fetus with one of several legally recognized diseases or defects. (Not that there are not numerous illegal abortions, of course.)

If there are Americans who would wish the US to emulate Iran's statist womb control, they should honestly say so, rather than promulgating such an approach under the guise of their loaded buzz words.

 

Ironic horseshtt is ironic.

 

I liked the OP on this thread. I just wrote a reply on my own abortion thread that I would like to share here.

Now according to Roe v Wade, states to have a right and obligation to protect the unborn.

Also, regarding ethics and morals, please read the above. Then tell us, which is more likely, we who try to defend human life are immoral, and you who fight to protect a woman's right are moral, or the reverse?

 

Face it extremists, abortion is not going anywhere and is perfectly acceptable for any reason the woman wants. The way it should be.

 

And the silver lining to abortion might be the fact that a great many of the aborted - maybe even most, given the demographic - would've grown up to be good little Democrat robots. Keep up the good work! It might be the only salvation for our future.

 

Actually its factually known conservatives have the most abortions.

 

Like owning dangerous weapons, like guns, eh?

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
"a member of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead."

 

Since af foetus is neither a baby or an infant I would say this sentence is meaningless

Well, yes and the Broccoli I ate yesterday is now something else - things change

 

Around 5000 every year, or 1.5%.....that adds up to roughly four times the number of Americans who were killed in Vietnam.

 

Not to stray off topic but the MSM spends all day justifying gun control. Open both eyes and you'll be amazed at the enhanced vision.

 

Those who adhere to the "Shazam! Instant Person!" theory espouse an alternate explanation. A fully-developed itty-bitty person, a homunculus, appears immediately at conception and merely gets bigger and bigger during gestation. The alternate scientific version that a person actually forms gradually, passing through fetal developmental stages - zygote, blastocyst, embryo - whilst acquiring the essential characteristics of personhood, is anathema to those tho adhere to the notion of the sudden appearance of microscopic people.



Entertaining such a quaint, fanciful concept is harmless, of course, but attempting to wield the coercive power of the State to force everyone, including those directly impacted by the matter, to submit to the dictates of such twaddle is pernicious.

Wikipedia provides numerous cognet links.

 

The official total of US deaths in the Vietnam War was 58,209, but that has nothing to do with the tragic situations where women after the several months they carry them hoping for healthy, viable babies, lose them due to medical complications. Rather than coldly and cruelly reducing those women to inhuman status so that they can be exploited to promote your agenda, listen to them, and exhibit a modicum of human compassion:

 

Okay, so to the conservatives here, I have a question. Imagine you own a small apartment building, and you rent it out to a person. Maybe you agreed to this, maybe you signed a contract without reading it too carefully, and maybe he was forced upon you by the mafia or something. Either way, he's there, and he's dirt-poor. He can't make rent, but if you throw him out, he will die. No question, he can't make it on his own. Do you have a moral responsibility to keep your house open to this person? Should you have a legal responsibility to give up your autonomy and freedom for that person's sake, when you clearly don't want them?

I think the free market solution, the conservative solution, would be, "(*)(*)(*)(*) him, it's his problem". If he can't take care of himself outside of your help, and you don't want to give him that help, tough titties. Hence: my support for abortion. Of course, it goes even further than that in the case of actual abortion; you're not giving that person access to your resources, to your home; you're giving them access to your body. Your bodily autonomy is threatened. That's a great deal more serious in my eyes.

Really? Really?!

 

Sure.... right... and the earth is flat, and babies actually come from storks.....

pffftt.... and you claimed you knew stuff bout science...

 

.... and spewing millions of tonnes of industrial effluvia into the atmosphere has no effect on 6,000 year old earth's atmosphere, and a microscopic zygote is really a sentient wee bloke.