If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

I stated that I'm not claiming that there are too many people in the world.

Apply those reasoning skills, einstein.

 

Finally an answer .. its like trying to get blood out of a stone.

So ok, lets see your evidence to back up your claim.

 

Personally I do not believe a fetus is a "human being" and until you can show me proof of otherwise I will continue to not believe it.

BUT I am pro choice, not because I think killing your fetus is right, for I surly do not, but because of the choice that women should be allowed. You know this of course from our earlier debates. I only bring this up because you said "They still maintain that one person can justify killing another person, based upon the *value* of that person"

Many people are pro choice because they don't want a choice (that women fought for) to be taken away from them. Many pro choicers themselves will tell you that they personally wouldn't have an abortion but they do feel people need to have "the choice". That choice is what is the main debate in abortion, not the killing of or the value of the fetus. The choice should be there for multipal reasons. One of my favorite articles couldn't have said it more clearly. Check it out:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/10/25/the-pro-choice-argument-pthere-are-those/

Its a little lengthy, but worth the read.

 

I am also interested in the research on the subject. Do send a link.

 

Excellent article .. however I fear it will mean nothing to the majority of rabid pro-lifers who frequent this forum

 

No, not finally an answer. I re-iterated what I already said.

And what is my claim??? You claimed there were too many people. You back up YOUR claim. I don't go around proving negatives.

 

See here's the problem with this line of reasoning...I can't convince you that a fetus is a human being because you refuse to accept the traditional definition of human being. Pro-abortionists have come up with a whole new language...."personhood" "women's rights" "choice" meant to obfuscate and hide the issue. You can't kill a human...so suddenly, the unborn aren't human. Murder is a human rights violation...so let's call it a "choice" and protect it with "rights".

People don't have the right to kill each other. And the unborn are people at their most vulnerable. They are at an early stage of development, but then old people are at an advanced stage of development and are likewise less capable of fully participating in society. Just two ends of the spectrum..and we don't have the right to terminate either of them at will. It isn't our *right* to kill those who for whatever reason are vulnerable and unable to care for themselves; dependence does not nullify a person's humanity.

 

now you need to go by your own advice, and actually keep track of the comments, I have never said there are too many people in the world, though I will do so now

You don't go around proving very much at all.

 

As if you would know. We just spent how many pages? pointing out to you that your very stupid question was completely unnecessary, and in fact was answered before you ever asked it.

What on earth would you do if confronted with anything like complex ideas? You fail to understand the simplest utterances.

Anyway, you've asserted, more than once, that there are too many people on the planet. Go ahead and prove that.

 

Wrong.

In war people have the right to kill people
The death penalty gives people the right to kill people
Life support machines are turned off everyday .. guess what that kills people

Who said anything about "fully participating in society" those are your words projected to add credence to your opinion, I've not seen anybody, apart from you, use those words or even imply them.
The unborn are part of the human race, they are human beings . .however you or any other pro-lifer have never shown any evidence to show they are independent sentient persons.
your analogy between the unborn and the old is flawed (based on your false premise that pro-choicers think not "fully participating in society" is the reason to keep abortion legal) the old, have at some point been fully participating in society, they have drawn in air to oxygenate their blood, they have (or have had) the necessary fully developed brain to be sentient, a fetus has not . .regardless of its potential to have them . .comparing the unborn to the old is comparing apples to oranges.
The old may be dependent for what ever reason, however that dependency can be fulfilled by almost anyone, can a fetuses dependency be fulfilled by anyone other than the woman carrying it.

 

blah .. blah .. blah .. strawman ... blah . .blah .. blah .. squirming .. blah .. blah .. blah

oh, so now I have "asserted", more than once, that there are too many people on the planet .. changing a word to another that means basically the same thing doesn't cut it and please, once again, provide my comments "asserting", more than once, that I have said there are too many people on the planet, you know that little thing you keep on about called evidence.

Is that the Royal "we" or just delusions of your own grandeur, and of course the question was stupid, because you thought it so . .funny no one else mentioned it.

 

It is true that we do not have the right to kill human beings. I agree with you completely on that. Even more so I agree that both sides, Pro Life and Pro Choice use made up crap to claim their side. What I still don't agree with, and your right I probably won't unitl you come up with facts showing me otherwise, is that the beginning of a fetus, when it is just beginning to grow is human. If it was abortion laws would have been changed by now.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, though it is worth the read.

 

There is no denying a fetus is human, it has human DNA, and it is the product of two other humans, it is not a person however under the law.

 

The pro-choice movement, in order to justify murder, have re-defined humanity.. We now have terms like "human BEING" and "PERSONHOOD" which exist separately from mere "human", specifically to separate out humans at different stages of development or capability, in order that they may be killed for convenience sake.

Every fascist government that has ever sought the support of the people in order to commit genocide has done the exact same thing.

The unborn have ALWAYS been considered human beings, women have ALWAYS referred to their *fetuses* as "babies". You look at the genetic material of a fetus and it is the same as the genetic material of a 5 year old.

It is a human being. There's no other way to consider it. So admit that what people who fight for abortion are really fighting for is the right to kill humans for the sake of convenience, and the right to allow some humans the right to deny other humans their right to live, and you will be telling the truth. Stop the lie that it's okay to kill them because they aren't human. They are human and everybody knows it.

 

Law does not define who and what people are. We exist separate from the law, and in spite of it.

You do realize that crimes against humanity are still crimes, regardless of supporting law under which they are committed?

 

Yes I realize that and I do believe it is a crime against humanity to strip a woman of her rights to medical authority over her own body due to the status of her uterus.

 

And how about a later term abortion. Doesn't this deny her of her bodily rights?

 

Fugazi said

Yes true....but you forgot abortion...it also is legalized killing.

So they are part of the human race...and you believe there should be nothing to protect them. Is a newborn an independent sentient person? A newborn is dependent on someone to take care of it...or it would die. If a woman had a child and left it alone....what would happen? Could it survive until it could fend for itself? No...it is dependent for EVERYTHING. It could not survive out of the womb without help. And some newborns need medical help and would die without it. Can you prove a newborn is independent and could survive without help?

Pro-choicers want abortion legal because the great majority feel its the woman's body and she not only owns her body but should have the right to determine what happens with it. Its HER RIGHT, HER BODY.

You want no protection for the unborn life in the womb...right?

It is the womans right,.........right?

 

""""its the woman's body and she not only owns her body """"


YOU have stated that many times.....

 

That reasoning is flawed. Yes, we own our bodies.

However we may not use them to harm others; and we are obligated to care for children under our care, for the duration of time they are dependent upon us.

Say you are in the mall restroom at closing...and as you're leaving, you notice a 2 year old wandering around. There are no other adults around. If you walk away from that child, and it falls into a fountain and drowns...did you know you are considered negligent, and liable for the child's death?

You are. I learned this when I told my sister, a judge, that I had gone to pick up something at my ex husband's house, and discovered both of his boys, ages 7 and 8, were sitting on top of the car port and he was nowhere to be found. I did stay with them....and when I mentioned it to my sis, she said, "that's a good thing, because if something happened, and anyone knew you were the last one to see them, then you are automatically liable."

It's the same with the unborn. You are liable for that child until it's born, and placed in the care of another responsible adult. Until it is, whether you wanted or planned for it or not, it's your responsibility.

 

But you didn't answer my questions.
So they are part of the human race...and you believe there should be nothing to protect them. Is a newborn an independent sentient person? A newborn is dependent on someone to take care of it...or it would die. If a woman had a child and left it alone....what would happen? Could it survive until it could fend for itself? No...it is dependent for EVERYTHING. It could not survive out of the womb without help. And some newborns need medical help and would die without it. Can you prove a newborn is independent and could survive without help?

 

The point is you made a definite statement "People don't have the right to kill each other." which is obviously wrong as I pointed out to you.

And who is it that decides they have "forfeited their right to life", a legal system that you shout against when they make a decision you don't agree with ie abortion.

and abortion is sanctioned killing of fetuses.

war also kills innocent children, ie the government sanctioning the death of innocent people, which you support .. approx 55,000 children killed in Iraq .. but of course these are just "unavoidable" in your book, and by what right did the US (& UK) go to war in Iraq .. by lies that's how.

And an abortion is just removing the life support from a fetus and if you think that removing life support is only done for those "technically" dead, you are so wrong - Just one example of many, go google Zack Dunlap.

Did those children in Iraq pick up a rifle, did they fight for a cause or were they just frightened innocent children killed because they happen to live in a country the USA wanted the oil from.

Tell that to the estimated 5,740 kids killed by guns the USA between 2008-2009 - http://www.childrensdefense.org/chi...tions/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf
Do you stand against all wars, do you stand against gun ownership . .both kill innocent children.