Ugh? The answer is no. But you seem to have gone into fantasy land. Think about it, if thats the reasoning if I get a speeding ticket it probably says I didnt want to go that slowly so remove the speeding signs from the roadside.Think about this-If a woman wants an abortion, what does that say? it probably says that that child would not grow up in a good environment, and may not be loved if they are not wanted-now isn't it better that that woman gets an abortion?
No what it boils down to is that an undeveloped baby is a human life period. To disregard this is to go against every bit of science on this subject. When you look at a person in a hospital in a vegetative state due to brain damage as not being a human life? When you destroy the life of a undeveloped baby you are killing a human life. It is as simple as that. Like I said you don't have a valid argument that makes any sense.Well, what it boils down to is that the undeveloped fetus is not a person.
Freedom begins with protecting a human being's right to life.True that is a very bad thing when it happens, and we would do well to ensure all women have a choice.
I don't know where you are getting this. What if someone else had the authority to determine whether or not you are a cancer or tummer that needs to be destroyed or a human being? What kind of rights would you have then?The unborn have all the rights they could ever ask for -- its only after they are born that they don't get all the rights they ask for.
No but you could reach out to someone before they get that desperate.Shall we go into the the homes of drunks and abusers and kill the children because according to you, those children won't grow up in a good environment anyway? Who shall decide what is and isn't a good environment for a child? Shall Democrats decide that a Republican home is bad? Should a Christian group decide for athiests? Should an economic level be the deciding factor? Shall an intelligence level? Should a health requirement be met? Should we let weight be a factor? Kill all the obese kids since they wouldn't have led as good a life as their skinnier counterparts. The doctor that delivered our baby asked if we wanted to get a test done at 14 weeks to test for Down Syndrome so that we could "terminate the pregnancy" before the 20 week deadline.
That argument (that I have seen many times before your presenting of it) is sick and twisted.
In Christ, GB
Not good enough .You are applying liberal laws and values toThink about this-If a woman wants an abortion, what does that say? it probably says that that child would not grow up in a good environment, and may not be loved if they are not wanted-now isn't it better that that woman gets an abortion?
No but you could reach out to someone before they get that desperate.
What was that about love your neighbour etc? .Someone said that a long time
ago,but I have feeling that it is forgotten.
Has it never ever occurred to you that you need to take another
angle on this,for example why do you think Jesus was so 'easy' on
'the least of them',and so hard on the 'righteous'.
Could it be that He saw the broken hearted created by a strident
selfish society,and that these were in fact the victims ,the more
sensitive,who were pushed aside to keep it working for 'the Righteous' ?
There are some who are good ,very, who fall. Do not mistake those,
for those who are determined to make trouble.
This issue is not the same as saving the life of a living person.I think you missed my point. I am trying to save the life of those who would otherwise be slaughtered in the name of choice. I was trying to show darwinian that his argument was flawed stemming from flawed logic.
In Christ, GB
The baby is no more part of the woman than a man's woohoo is part of her body during intercourse (I really hope that was PG rated enough). Just because the baby is inside her does not mean it's part of her, it just means that there is a baby inside her. If the child was actually her body, then that means for nine months a woman has two hearts, four arms, four legs, four eyes, a penis if she is carrying a boy, an extra vagina if she is carrying a girl, two noses, two different blood types, two brains, two mouths, four lungs, etc, etc...It's cute, all these men here telling women what to do with their uterus.
Wonderful point. I think that is the problem with those of the pro-choice side is that they never ever think of a the baby. How many babies have died over the years is more than all the wars throughout history combined!The baby is no more part of the woman than a man's woohoo is part of her body during intercourse (I really hope that was PG rated enough). Just because the baby is inside her does not mean it's part of her, it just means that there is a baby inside her. If the child was actually her body, then that means for nine months a woman has two hearts, four arms, four legs, four eyes, a penis if she is carrying a boy, an extra vagina if she is carrying a girl, two noses, two different blood types, two brains, two mouths, four lungs, etc, etc...
In Christ, GB
Shall we go into the the homes of drunks and abusers and kill the children because according to you, those children won't grow up in a good environment anyway? Who shall decide what is and isn't a good environment for a child? Shall Democrats decide that a Republican home is bad? Should a Christian group decide for athiests? Should an economic level be the deciding factor? Shall an intelligence level? Should a health requirement be met? Should we let weight be a factor? Kill all the obese kids since they wouldn't have led as good a life as their skinnier counterparts. The doctor that delivered our baby asked if we wanted to get a test done at 14 weeks to test for Down Syndrome so that we could "terminate the pregnancy" before the 20 week deadline.
That argument (that I have seen many times before your presenting of it) is sick and twisted.
In Christ, GB
Wonderful point. I think that is the problem with those of the pro-choice side is that they never ever think of a the baby. How many babies have died over the years is more than all the wars throughout history combined!
You are misinterpreting my point, what I'm saying is that if the women knows that her child won't grow up in a good situation, and she can't care for it, then it's best she doesn't have it, and SHE is the one making that decision. Your saying it's bad that we should decide what's a good and bad life that the child will grow up in, even though it would be the future mother, yet you're trying to force that women to have that child and have them grow up in the situation that the women deemed bad. So you don't want people imposing their viewpoints of bad and good, yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing! That my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy.
So, in a sense I agree with you. I don't think it should be mine or your choice either, it should be the future mother's; and the problem I have with your viewpoint is you are trying to make that decision, which is exactly what you say we shouldn't do. That is hypocrisy.You have decided that sentencing the child to death would be better than any life he/she could lead. You have relegated the child to the grave before he/she could pull themselves up by their boot straps and make a name and a life for himself/herself. I am no hypocrite, I am just saying that it's not my place or your place to say who will and who won't have a good enough of a life to warrant whether or not they get to lead that life.
In Christ, GB
No what it boils down to is that an undeveloped baby is a human life period.
I don't have to claim a human being is a person or not to defend my point. Human life is human life no matter where it is at in its development or condition.
Freedom begins with protecting a human being's right to life.
I'd tell them I would like the right to life, and if they don't respond to that I'd shoot them in the face. Next time a cancer or a fetus or a cell culture asks for the right to life, or so much as shows a fear of death or pain, let me know. But like I said, a fetus has all the rights it could ever ask for, and more besides.I don't know where you are getting this. What if someone else had the authority to determine whether or not you are a cancer or tummer that needs to be destroyed or a human being? What kind of rights would you have then?
Maybe they should have thought about the possible results of their choice, before they chose to have sex then we wouldn't have abortions nor this thread.
I think that is the problem with those of the pro-choice side is that they never ever think of a the baby.