Would Abortion of a 16-Year-Old be Moral?

You are so full of (*)(*)(*)(*) you must have brown eyes. Remove a baby without killing it at six months, and it can survive with proper care. You are just a psychotic typical no sense pro abortion mouthpiece.

If the argument is sustainability, murder up to the age of three or four is absolutely within the confines of your demented reality.

Own it, and suck it.

 

It depends on the time of day and my earlier bowel movements. That however does not negate the total ignorance exhibited in your post.

If you would set aside ignorance and took the effort to learn something about the topic, you would know that fetuses are not aborted at 6 month of gestation, but before the 3 month mark.
Why not familiarize yourself with the facts of the issue thus avoiding such uninformed drivel to reflect your knowledge.

Irrelevant of what you choose to label me, it does not negate the ignorance you put forth.

 

What if she wants to give the kid to someone else one day but there's a waiting period (so, oh, nine months)... what must she do in the meantime? Work for money, exhausting herself to provide the necessities for her child?

 

This is what I try to get through to the pro-choicers... why is this simple concept so hard to understand?

 

A baby born at 24 weeks has a 39% chance of survival, and only then by extreme measures:

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm

The majority of surviving preemies have long term disabilities.

 

They understand it, it's completely logical. They refuse to entertain the reality because their whole argument is built on a false foundation from the start.

 

What is the percentage of babies surviving abortion?

Also does a D&E leave any disabilities? I suspect dismemberment is going to leave a mark or two.

 

Abortion doesn't kill a "baby." "Baby" is a stage of development between birth and one year. Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

 

I know there is some confusion amoung many when addressing a natural Right but the key remains that a natural Right is that which is inherent in the individual and that it cannot infringe upon the Rights of another Individual. As this relates to when the Right to Life originates it cannot exist so long as there is an infringment upon the Rights of the mother or, as in the case of the science fiction hypothetical situation presented, the Rights of Property of the owners of the machine used in place of the mother.

A new born baby has a Right to Life because that Right does not infringe upon anyone else's Rights. It has a Right to secure food to sustain itself even though it doesn't have the ability to do so. It does not have a Right for others to feed it but as a society, we have imposed a legal and moral obligation upon the parents or guardians of the to feed the child. There is a difference between society imposing an obligation based upon moral principles and the Rights of the Individual.

We cannot confuse the imposition by society of a moral obligation with the natural Rights of the Individual.

 

the sum total of all your arguments is this: "Everyone that disagrees with me is 'ignorant'"...this is not 'proof', this isn't even really an argument. It's schoolyard bully behaviour..."YOU'RE STUPID!"...it doesnt' make it any more legitimate just because you use the grown up 'ignorant' instead of 'stupid'.

but it is what I have come to expect from the proabortion crowd here, sneering superiority as they blindly spout their circular arguments..

 

Yes, the Word Game 2012. Much like the Word Games of history.

Pretty pathetic that people like you will even posit such idiocy, but I understand the game of justification. It allows one to sleep like a baby.

 

Oh dear, you are still struggling with attempts to remain relevant. Generalizations, labeling and condemnation do not mask reality, the reality that you still have not contributed anything intelligent or relevant to any of the threads.

 

You are the one playing emotional word games. If you are attempting to change public abortion policy, at least use accurate terminology regarding stages of development.

Take away your appeal to emotion logical fallacies, and what do you have left? Only demonization of the opposition, also a logical fallacy.

 

Sorry, but saying there is something called "natural rights", or unalienable Rights does not make it so. in the first place, there is no logic, or sense to about 90 percent of all man-made laws. The only rights anyone can have are those earned by "might of arms".
Government exists to make it possible for large groups of people to work together, form a civilization and exist with the fewest number of problems possible. That is what laws, morals, rules and governments are about, nothing more. Humans are rude, mean, violent, greedy and many other things, without govt, rules etc, then they would be at each others throats like Siamese fighting fish. The code of Hammurabi, the bible, the Qur'an all established guidelines to allow large groups to work together, that is all.
Trees do not have natural rights, viruses do not have natural rights, plankton does not have natural rights, lions do not have natural rights and humans do not have natural rights. The only "rights" any living thing has is those it can take.

 

I am not sure what others are saying, but...I am saying that a fetus is a parasitic growth in a female, and the female has the right to do as she wishes with it. I prefer to see a million fetuses be flushed, to the death of ONE young girl from an illegal abortion.

 

I believe the individual is being intentionally obtuse, in order to avoid addressing the valid issue you raise. By being obtuse and replying with nonsense that has no validity or relationship to the issue, he/she avoids have to admit to being wrong. Anyone that cannot tell the difference, between a fetus which must be connected to its mother to exist and a human baby that is crying in a crib, would not be able to use this forum.

 

Actually, since murder is illegal and abortion is not, then your supposition has no validity in the discussion.

 

Well thats better than sleeping like a fetus.

When I am feeling down and powerless.. I write a check for a million dollars and then... I burn it.... ... I burned a million dollars ... yeah baby...

 

If a person is wrong, stupid and foolish, what should you say? Wow, you are great, your opinions are so valid and remarkably brilliant?

By the way, I personally am not pro-abortion, I am pro-legal-abortion. There is a huge difference in the two.

 

It is amazing how so many can equate a group of parasitic cells to a human baby!!

 

People should really try reading the Declaration of Independence of the United States as well as the writings John Locke. The above statement is merely an uninformed opinion unworthy of taking the time to respond to.

 

Sorry, but the papers of the founding fathers are NOT the WORD OF GOD. The political language used in the Declaration and the Constitution was mainly to satisfy the foolish masses. And just because a few dead men believed in the nonsense of "natural law" does NOT give it validity, it just shows how wrong they were.

 

So, if there should be a moral obligation to prohibit not providing the necessities of a child (food, etc.), which would kill him/her, why do you think there is no moral obligation to prohibit not providing the necessary physical attachment, which would kill him/her?

 

Huh?????????????????????

 

Not providing food for your child = crime
Not providing a uterus for your child = not crime
That's inconsistent. If you want to argue that a fetus is not a child, you can make a valid argument off of that, but not if you say that the fetus is a person.