You Will Regret Your Abortion

Do you believe that late term abortion is worse than first or second term abortion? Yes or no?

If no, please elaborate why you are so fixated on them.

 

Yes, since the overwhelming majority are for foetal abnormality that is not compatible with life.

 

That is not what I mean…and you know it.

Should any woman…at any time….be allowed to get an abortion…for whatever reason?

 

No an abortion kills a living human being.

My position is consistent….a life is a life. But the majority of pro-aborts believe that abortion should be legal because its a woman's body…but then….they want to deny her that right in later terms. Hypocritical

 

Whether on purpose or out of ignorance, your understanding of the concept of compromise could use some education. You're welcome.


From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise?s=t

com·pro·mise
 
noun
1.
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2.
the result of such a settlement.
3.
something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.

 

Tell me how one can compromise on rape…or incest….or child abuse.

One can't compromise….on something that is immoral and wrong. No such compromise for me on abortion can exist.

 

Whether it can exist for you is irrelevant to whether it can exist to rational objective people.

We're not talking about rape, or incest, or child abuse. Nice red herrings. Those are completely separate issues that all deal with a PERSON after they have been born. Apples and Chairs.

 

Life is life…no matter if someone is in the womb…or in a irreversible coma. They are both alive, both human.

 

Correct. However, one is a person and one is not.

 

But I don't see it that way. Funny that in the Scott Peterson murder trial…he was convicted of two crimes…on two people. The jury even mention the unborn by NAME.

And you say that which is in the womb is not a person.

 

It's not. Citing this one court case all the time does not prove your point. That was a case that had quite a bit of media attention, and it's very likely pro-life activists had their hand in that second murder charge happening in the first place. It was completely unnecessary. Charging Scott Peterson with the murder of the child was completely symbolic, since the judge would have taken it into consideration during sentencing in the first place.

This is also moot to an abortion discussion since we can all but guarantee that the mother did not wish to terminate her pregnancy. This man not only took her life, but took away her choice on what happened to her pregnancy. Abortion in America is not the forced termination of a pregnancy, and I do not agree with forced abortion in any circumstances.

If that which is in the womb IS a person, why have no personhood bills gathered enough votes to pass(and not just legislature votes, these are usually put to a direct vote), even in ultra-conservative states like South Dakota and your own state of Arizona?

 

You should listen, churchmouse. You keep repeating the same fallacies over and over, despite having been shown they are wrong, which reflects very badly on you.

The unborn victims of violence act did not give unborn human entities personhood.

Now please move on from that.

 

Then these unborn victims, if they are not people what are they?, and if they are not people how are they victims?. Victims of what exactly?.

 

And a person is a person and Rights only exist for persons. A fact that anti-abortionists seem to continually ignore. Prior to birth a zygote, embryo and/or fetus is not a person as there is no historical precedent for defining them as a person. A woman is a person and has inalienable Rights that cannot be denied.

For the nth time I'll address the fact that personhood can be established under the laws of the United States and to do that requires a Constitutional Amendment. Those that oppose abortion have one ligitimate means for addressing their opinions and that is by promoting a Constitutional Amendment to establish personhood of the preborn. That is the only ligitimate recourse they have in the United States. Everything else is a fraud and a violation of the Rights of the Woman.

 

Please tell me when a person, becomes a person?.

 

At birth.

 

A person at birth…..wow.

How ignorant of science.

 

Come on you are running from the point I am making…and the question. Answer them directly. You brought up the question of colors in relation to a moral issue. You said….everything is basically gray. Is rape gray? child abuse? pedopelia?

Come on what color are these issues?

 

I really have no idea what you're trying to say or ask here.

We're not talking about rape, or incest, or child abuse. The abortion conversation isn't even about whether abortion should be legal in cases or rape or incest. These points you're bringing up have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. If you want to talk about them, create a post in the relevant forum.

Other than your red herrings, I have answered your questions, so again, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

 

Science has nothing to do with it. Science tells you it's alive. It does not tell you it's a person.

 

If you say morality is in the eye of the beholder…and its gray…then my view is as valid as yours, right? I think it is a person from the start. You don't.

You are making the claim that it is not…prove it. Present your case. Then speak to why our courts all over the country convict people of crimes when they hurt the unborn in the womb.

 

The problem is, while you are welcome to see your claim as valid, the law does not agree with you, and since it is the law alone that determines a person's options regarding abortion in this country, that's a pretty important distinction.

You don't have to be a person in order for it to be a crime to harm you. It's not okay to harm animals(in some cases), or even inanimate property as well. That doesn't make those animals or that property a person.

The mother is the only one who gets to choose whether she wants to carry her pregnancy to term, or get an abortion. Since we can be pretty sure that a murderer has not bothered to ask if the woman wants to end her life, let alone the pregnancy she has, it's safe to say that the murderer has ignored her rights to life and her right to choose.

Beyond that, I consider these laws that charge a murderer with two crimes for killing a pregnant woman to be a thinly veiled move by the right to get them closer to personhood. Their meaning and their need are moot. Any judge would consider the woman's pregnancy during sentencing in the first place.

 

Junkieturtle said,

Ok lets go this way….

Morality reflects society at the time then you say. Right?

So say in 20 years society says…rape is wrong, unless your married…then a man has a right to his wires body and a woman has rights to her husbands body…if they are married. Would you support that stance if it was law? Would you say…ok its legal, I don't agree with it…but would vote to keep it a law?

In fact what you say here speaks the truth…we treat animals and give them more protection than our unborn children.

But if that which is in the womb is not a person…and has no rights…its simply ignored by society…how can you punish something society does not recognize?

If I were Scott Peterson I would appeal the one conviction…because society does not see Connor as a person. Do you agree?

But the courts did say Connor was a person. They called him by name.

 

Yes, I would agree with that, though it all depends on whose morality you're talking about. Each person has their own version of it.

I wouldn't support it, no, and I would vote to make it illegal.

No we don't. The only person allowed to initiate an abortion is the mother. There are no laws against animals having abortions, only laws against other people killing them needlessly. If animals were sentient beings on the same level as humans, I have no doubt that abortion would be legal for them as well. I believe it is the right of any sentient being to be able to determine what will and will not happen within their own body.

It's not ignored by society. People attach their own emotional weight to a fetus, but that emotional attachment does not depend on a fetus having rights. The two aren't even remotely connected. Having an emotional attachment to something does not make it a person and does not grant it rights.

Bad form on the part of the judge if you ask me. He was probably an "activist" judge, wouldn't you say? But tell me this, if the Scott Peterson case DID afford rights to a fetus, why do fetuses have no rights still?

 

So tell me what exactly is the difference in the baby when it is in the mothers womb and when it is outside the mothers womb?.

Also how come some pro-abortionists say it is not a person until the heart is formed, some say it is not until it has a heartbeat?.
How come many of you cannot seem to agree on when a person is a person?.
Nearly all pro-lifers agree life begins at conception, but with pro-abortionists there alot of confusion.