Leftys finally admit to Murder !!!

A fetus is alive and human abortion kills it it’s not murder a fetus is not a person i don’t want any 1 to kill theirs(unless im the father ) but i don’t mind if they do

 

Oh good, so you admit that something is not a person if it hasn't grown into personhood?

And the "comparison" i'm using is the twisted logic of anti-abortionists.

 

No , but does a cancer cell ever become a fertilized egg ?

 

A lot of ifs ... But again what are the odds of cancer becoming a future president or even burger flipper ? What percentage of fetuses that become adults ? I really don't care about abolition that much , I like the laws as they are now for the most part ... I just wish young women would think more about birth control instead of abortion ...

 

That's the standard of this board. Opinion pieces that don't cover any current event belong in the Political opinions forum. The reason I care is because the current events forum is always so littered with repetitive threads and the other boards are quite lonely by comparison.

 

Where were all you quacks trying to defend human life when Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, was being gunned down?

 

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person. Since abortion is legal, it is OBJECTIVELY NOT murder. You just dishonestly decided to use that word to support your own position with an appeal to emotion.


Whether one supports abortion or not, seems to come down almost entirely to subjective considerations. Does a woman's right to self-sovereignty and her right to make health care decisions for herself(rather than government), trump a fetuses right to life? Some people think that human souls are formed at conception, and therefore fetuses deserve the same rights as anyone else. So therefore the right of that fetus trumps the right of a woman to be sovereign over her body, and her ability to make health care decisions for herself. Other people however, find that a woman's right to be sovereign over her body and her ability to make health care decisions for herself, as opposed to government making it for her, is more important than any rights a fetus may possess.

Beyond the question of comparative rights, many people question whether a fetus has any rights at all. It ultimately comes down to what part of human life you believe is valuable. If the very existence of some type of life is sacred, then you probably believe that a life is deserving of rights at conception. Other people reject such ideas, and think that there are characteristics of life, which make human life valuable and worth protecting, that fetuses simply do not have at their earliest stages of development. It is a complicated debate, and one I can understand both sides of, but people shouldn't trivialize it, because they make themselves seem silly when they do.

 

Good one.

 

A human being is a human being regardless of what stage of development it's on. That development doesn't stop outside the womb either. Baby/Child/Juvenile are all words used to describe a human being at different stages of development outside the womb, just as "Fetus/Trimester" are words used to describe stages of development inside the womb.

A human being that has not reached full adulthood is, by definition, not a fully developed human being.

Killing a child because it's not a fully developed human is as immoral as killing a fetus because it's not fully developed. Rationalizations like "it's not viable yet" are just that: rationalizations, used to make oneself feel better about committing an immoral act.

To the pro-abortionists amongst us: At the end of the day, you are perfectly willing to kill a human being simply because it hasn't reached a developmental stage at which you're feelings of empathy kick in. At least be honest about it and move on from there, rather than bending over backwards to convince everyone that it's not a human being simply because of the rationalizations you've drummed straight from your bung-hole. Those are reasons why you feel fine with killing a human being: not what defines a human being to begin with.

Admitting this shouldn't be that hard. Just think of your support for euthanasia to remind yourself of other reasons why you're comfortable with killing innocent human life.

 

Let me give you the minority position on this. I have no intention of supporting a woman's kid due to a poor decision. If you want to get technical and pull strings, call it murder. If you want to join reality, put your money where your mouth is and adopt the kid. If a woman states that she would rather abort the fetus than putting it up for adoption, you have a right to consider that person "evil". For the record, pro-euthanasia and pro-death penalty. No sense keeping people around if they don't want to be here or if they haven't been born and the parent doesn't want them here (i.e. here = "consciousness on Earth").

 

Regardless of what stage............

Hmmm - so pre-implantaion? You want to call that "killing and murder"

How about the first week when a large percentage get "miscarried - that "killing"

How about if the woman, unaware of the recent implantation, drinks too much coffee, alcohol etc and miscarries - that "killing"?

 

Sounds like a lawyer hired by the church perhaps. I'm pretty sure the Roman Catholic Church's position on life inside the womb is pretty clear. GASP! Oh, another liberal playing dumb?!

 

Link? Still yet another bad excuse for killing babies. And what were the other 50% doing? Playing pregnancy lotto? Does having an abortion mean they won or lost? So what you are saying is that 50% of women who have abortions did nothing to avoid getting pregnant? Kinda shows how irresponsible women are.

No, some fertilized eggs are not human. It must be a human fertilized egg to become human. All humans were once fertilized human eggs.

EW! (God I hope that is one for http://www.(*)(*)(*)(*)youautocorrect.com/ )

Let's hope they listen to your pleas. Perhaps we can eliminate that kind of thinking from the gene pool.

Think the ones comparing cancer cells with persons are using twisted logic. Like, um, you.

What percentage of adults were once fetuses? 100%.

And full circle back to top of the post.

 

If they had stores where you could legally go in and shoot black teenagers, I would be against that.
They do have stores where you can go in and kill your unborn child. You against that? I thought not.
I hope Trayvon Martin's killer goes to jail by the way. If only Trayvon were still in his mothers womb, you'd be in favor of pulling the trigger.

 

Well, it seems as though my definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman, is unexceptable to the left. We must redefine marriage, and all must accept this redefinition.

Well brother in my dictionary, abortion is murder. Boo hoo. So you say abortion is legal? Okay, it is legalized murder. Unfortunately, Roe v Wade took away each states rights regarding abortion. Will the Supreme court do the same for gay marriage?

 

Not sure what you mean by "pre-implantation". Do you mean pre-conception? Obviously the only starting point of a human being is conception. Anything prior to that and you don't have a human being to work with...simply the ingredients of conceiving one...

Don't be deliberately obtuse. Dying of natural causes is not the same as being intentionally destroyed.

True, the actions of the woman can and do lead to miscarriages. Yes, she would, be definition, be ending its life. However, I see no reason why she would/should be held legally culpable in any sense unless her behavior crosses a line simiilar to the ones we already have for negligent behavior for children and suchlike, especially if she has no reason to believe she is even pregant to begin with.

 

In the English dictionary Murder has a definition. If it has a different definition in "your dictionary" I couldn't possible care less.

 

From what I can tell, this harkens back to an old thought experiment that goes something like this: you're in a burning building. On the table in front of you is a baby, and a freezer unit full of fertilized, ready-to-implant egg cells. That is, according to your (and many others here in the threads') definition, a unit full of human beings. Assuming you only have time to hoof one of them out of there, which do you take? The one baby, or the dozens of zygotes? I don't think anyone would not take the baby.

And yet, we still have dead babies from it.

What? I'm sorry, her negligence just murdered a child! How are you so lackadaisical about it?

 

I don't believe it's deliberate.