Abortion = Murder

Abortion is not murder nor is it manslaughter. It is a medical procedure.

As a man you may, like anyone else, form an opinion....but you may not force your opinion into law to take away the rights of others.

 

Not Abortionists, I'm pro-choice myself. & if name-calling is the first resort, then the pro-choice position will win all the legal battles. Sure, The law can be wrong - & if it is, we'll get together & amend it. The anti-abortion segment of the voters haven't yet made their case in a convincing way.

The written law in the US is based on English common law, to my knowledge. The US Constitution is based on that, & Enlightenment thinking. The role of societys morals in that isn't clear to me - I would think that moral beliefs turned more on the individual's religious beliefs & upbringing than anything else.

As to Roe, well, Trump's accession is probably the big chance. If there's a groundswell of opposition to Roe out there, now is the time. I don't see it myself, I think the majority of US voters still prefer to have Roe on the books, just in case.

 

Depends on how you define human being. I could say a human being is member of homo sapiens that is born.

All you're doing, which is typical in these threads, is arguing about labels. It's semantics.

Instead, explain to us why, in your view, a single celled fertilized egg should have superior rights to its mother, a fully developed, mature human being.

 

The life and rights of one human being cannot be taken by another one based on personal opinion.

 

We do it all the time. We take away rights of

We do that all the time. We've taken away the rights of immature human beings to vote, contract, smoke, drink, marry or live where they want.

As to the zygote, it depends on how you define "human being".

 

I'll make a bold move and offend everyone at the same time. I personally, see those who support abortion and engage in it no different than the Nazis we fought in World War 2. In any given abortion debate swap the words "fetus" or "baby" (obvious like terms included) for "Jew" and what you get is astounding. The fact is genocide is wrong no matter who does it. It doesn't matter what sort of group you affect, or why they are targeted, or even how they affect you or the majority, the simple fact is that mass extermination is never an answer. No one has a right to engage in such a thing. Yet in our society we justify it, excuse it, even celebrate it at times. I often wonder if historians of the future will look back on some of society's issues and compare us to the Dark Ages. We really have problems in this age of man.

 

Gee, how unique for a pro-lifer. Godwin's law fail.

 

Gee, how like someone who failed to understand the argument. Counter debate fail (mostly because you don't have one lol).

 

Abortion is neither genocide or mass extermination.

 

You denigrate what Jews went through and compare it to the painless death of a non-person! Disgusting.

Abortion is not genocide, you need a dictionary.

YOU: "" I often wonder if historians of the future will look back on some of society's issues and compare us to the Dark Ages""

So you're another who thinks abortion started in 1974.....a dictionary and a history book, both are called for.

Abortion has been around for thousands of years....DUH!

Making a bold move? No, just using a well worn and erroneous comparison...hardly bold!!

 

Why would you think I don't understand the argument? I understand it just fine. You equate abortion with the mass murder of adult people. Then you equate it to nazis for its effect.

I've see pro-lifers make these kinds of claims many times.

Godwin's law failure.

 

Ya, it was hardly a "bold move".....

 

The LAW decides when a foetus is a human being and it is, rightly, once it is ex-utero.

 

Words have meaning, that show people express ideas and communicate. When you don't like an idea, you tend to simply rant "its semantics" in hopes of ignoring the idea.

<>

I have posted that many times already. The baby is a human being at 21 weeks as that is the earliest a baby has been born and survived in normal health. Sometime between conception and 21 weeks, it becomes a human being. That point is unknown. Since it is unknown, following the basic morals of our society (Blackstones formulation, Hippocratic oath, innocent until proven guilty, etc) the baby must be given the benefit of the doubt and declared a human at conception until proven otherwise.

Some people look to functionality to define the baby's humanity, but that is not actually relevant. Unlike an adult who is incapacitated or brain dead, the baby is moving through different stages of human life and it is constantly improving in ability. The baby will grow out of its lack of ability, the brain dead adult will not.

The rights of the mother and baby must be balanced because of the unique condition of pregnancy. The mother cannot harm the baby (no alcohol, smoking, drug abuse, etc.) because the baby is totally dependent upon the mother, the baby has non options until it can be born (viable). The only condition the mother can clearly abort the baby is if the mothers life is significantly at risk and the baby is not viable.

 

From dictionary.com, or thefreedictionary.com, definition #2, abortionist is a person who favors or advocates abortion as a right or choice that all women should have.

The fact that you do not like the term which describes your position indicates you recognize there is very negative aspect to your belief.

The law is all about morality, so is the Constitution. Morals are the practical enactment of rights.

 

Inside a brain alive person who in 95% of abortions knew what they were doing. They were not raped, they engaged in sexual intercourse knowing that pregnancy was a potential outcome even if they took precautions. They rolled the dice and lost, and to get out of their situation they decide to murder a human being that they created.

 

No they terminate a brain dead human. No problem with that. Flush away

 

I am the mother of five. IMO, the fetus has no right to life as long as it is dependent upon my body to keep it alive. When it can exist without me, it has rights independent of mine. My leg or arm are alive, but they don't have any rights either.

 

A human fetus is always human, it's human from the get go....and you say it isn't human until 21 weeks !!!! WHAT!!!! What was it before 21 weeks , a zebra?

It, however is NOT a person in the legal sense until it's born.

If you believe it has rights BEFORE it's born than you don't believe women have the same rights as anyone else. You think THEY, and NO ONE ELSE, should be FORCED to sustain the life of another....something YOU aren't forced to do...it isn't legal....

 

You are correct.


Anti-Choicers continually deny women their right to their own body and insist a fetus has more rights and less restrictions than any other person...

If someone tried to force them to give their heart to someone who need a new one they would object but insist women are nothing more than incubating machines so shouldn't have the same rights they do.

 

Ya, I see your point which is why I NEVER refer to Anti-Choicers as "Pro-Life"....they are Anti-Choice and Pro-Fetus's Life ...and that's the only life they seem to care about because it can be used to control women.

 

I see you have no interest in any discussion.

 

I am always open to honest debate.but we have no problem killing brain dead patients in this country every day

 

On the off chance that you want to actually have a discussion, I will respond to your post.

As I have stated many, many times, the baby is a human with rights at conception. I'm not going to define terms repeatedly, you know what I mean.

Everyone has rights, and those rights have to be balanced with the rights of everyone else. The rights of a pregnant woman must be balanced against the rights of the baby. If you don't like that situation, then don't get pregnant.

 

Your young children are as dependent upon you for life as they were before they were born. Some adults are totally dependent upon outside help for survival, Stephen Hawking for example cannot breath, communicate, eat, move, on his own. Are you suggesting that dependency is the requirement for being granted a right to life? Are you willing to "abort" adults who cannot meet this level of independence?

Your arm is an arm, that is its "purpose" and it will never evolve into anything else, it will never reach a point at which it is its own individual self. The unborn baby will evolve into an individual, that is the entire purpose of the process of sexual intercourse and pregnancy.