I can answer, but like I said, it would take a lot of typing. One day I'll send you an autographed copy of my book on the subject. Btw, my question doesn't require a book to answer; it's yes or no.
I NEVER said they weren't human. (Why do you have to twist words to make an attempt at a point?) I said:"There is a fetus. It is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being(noun). Nor do they need to provide one. Keep your morals to yourself, they are NOT law. NO, they don't. Emotion has no place in logic.
FoxHastings said: ↑ FoxHastings said: ↑ NO anti-Choicer has EVER answered the question: What rights do you want the fetus to have that do not interfere in the rights of the woman it's in...? LOL, meaning you can't answer it either ! LOL Gee, look at all the words you typed in this thread....and a few more are too many ?!!!
The "cost" I'm considering in my cost/benefit analysis is total human suffering. This is one of those situations in which there is no good choice. No matter how our society mandates behavior toward the unborn, human suffering will result. But imo, the suffering under unfettered abortion, and the mindset toward the unborn that follows it, will create much more harm.
So you have no empathy for the hundreds of thousands of children that have suffered because they were injured in the womb? I ask this because you just said that you wouldn't even chastise a woman for doing this to a child. That's like telling someone who was raped that you empathize with them, but at the same time you tell them that the rapist is not only not going to be punished for it, but that it's wrong to view him in a negative way. Um...thats not empathy.
No it doesn't, but it sure does in debates. I'd love to see how you would explain how rape is morally wrong without using emotion.
FoxHastings said: ↑ I NEVER said they weren't human. (Why do you have to twist words to make an attempt at a point?) I said:"There is a fetus. It is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being(noun). Nor do they need to provide one. Keep your morals to yourself, they are NOT law. NO, they don't. Emotion has no place in logic. LOL, so TYPICAL...an Anti-Choicer can't answer questions so they start making things up....pathetic... IF one applied LOGIC then ONE would know that if an abortion prevents one of these children from a life of suffering then one IS sympathetic and empathetic. I guess you're just trying to avoid : I NEVER said they weren't human. (Why do you have to twist words to make an attempt at a point?) I said:"There is a fetus. It is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being(noun). IF one applied LOGIC then ONE would know that if an abortion prevents these children from having a life of suffering then one IS sympathetic and empathetic.
Funny...no answers to "why do women have an obligation to give birth?" The topic. And the never answered " what rights do you want a fetus to have that don't interfere with the rights of the person it's in?"" Just sidestepping and fantasy
Ok, I'll tell them and their family members that care that there can be no justice for their harm; the solution has already past as they should have been aborted. Just be honest, you have no way to confront someone (or their family) who has suffered lifelong effects from their mother's poisoning them, because your conversation would be restricted by your pro choice philosophy. Trust me, they don't want to hear that they should have been aborted, or that the perpetrator's actions should not be viewed in any sort of negative light. As far as you saying that they aren't human, I asked you if it was possible if these people could be harmed before birth, and your response stated they were not.
Maybe you haven't followed this thread but I've mentioned several examples. Babies in ICUs by the tens of thousands with no action taken against the ones who put them there. Also one day a government is going to genetically manipulate DNA in its citizens in order to benefit the state in some way. It will evoke a conversation about rights while in the womb. Good luck meshing those rights with legal abortion.
LOL, could you try that in English ? What a garbled mess... Please show exactly where I said that a human fetus wasn't human . Why can't you do that? Because you have no proof? YUPPERS, you have NO proof......so that proves you just made that up.... do you think that's honest or "moral" ? FoxHastings said: ↑ I NEVER said they weren't human. (Why do you have to twist words to make an attempt at a point?) I said:"There is a fetus. It is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being(noun).""""" See, any other poster can see that I didn't say that fetuses weren't human and that you are incorrect
Ok so if they are indeed a human, with an injury caused purposefully by another person, why can't anything be done about it?
What do you want "done about it" ? How do you know the harm was done purposely? A fetus does have protections under the UVVA(Unborn Victims of Violence Act) . If someone kills a pregnant woman and/or her fetus there are extra charges. The UVVA in no way gives a fetus rights , however. Maybe more should be done for the drug addicted and alcoholics.....but punishing them has never worked..
So you want to prohibit abortion because that will keep children from being born with defects that will put them into ICU's, and/or it will keep the government from manipulating their DNA? This is certainly one of the most total non-sequiturs I've seen on this board yet. How will these things come about, specifically?
So from both of you, I'm gathering that it's ok to do babies like this. I'm never rigid in any beliefs or opinions, so thanks for reinforcing my belief that I'm on the right side of this.
So far I haven't seen you gather anything correctly...you just make things up when you're stumped by facts... What TF does "do babies like this" mean ????????????
Yes, isn't that interesting? So many of the "pro-choice" arguments could be applied to small children too.
I'll turn this back around on you. What arguments wouldn't they be? (Besides of course from the obvious "it's inside the woman" argument)
LOL! So you can't answer the question....got it … Oh, and here's the UNcherry picked post: What arguments would that be? "small children" have nothing to do with abortion....
Sounds like a massive deflect, acknowledging that many of your same arguments could be used against small children.
Only to you. Here's a deflect...it's YOU never proving that women have an obligation to give birth and going off in all directions that have nothing to do with that bit of fantasy .
