Pro-Life

[Guttermouth]

Pay woman to not have an abortion, and give the child up for adoption.

Oh. I like this one. Lets use it as the perfect example of oversimplification.

If you want to pay a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute with HIV to keep her baby and put it up for adoption, please be prepared to adopt her mentally-disabled baby. And be prepared to adopt many more.

Unless you are prepared to do so, stop telling other people they are baby murderers.

Also be prepared to happily pay for all of the unwanted, developmentally challenged people who wind up in the criminal justice system. You know, the ones the far right are so eager to execute as not being worthy members of society.

What a crazy, sick cycle.

 

[GeoMetro]

"a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute with HIV"

So there all like that?
NO.

And you know it.

And as for the death penalty, abolish it.

 

[Guttermouth]

"a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute with HIV"

So there all like that?
NO.

And you know it.

And as for the death penalty, abolish it.

No, no they aren't. That isn't my point. My point is that so-called pro-life people seem to be blind to the realities of life. It isn't about paying 17-year-old healthy middle class girls to keep a baby. It is about the whole spectrum. Life isn't about black and white absolutes. It is a vast and unlimited variety. That is why looking at the abortion debate in uncompromising terms will never work.

There is no shortage of unwanted babies born to such mothers. When they are all adopted by loving pro-life families, I will start listening a little more.

 

[Asimov]

Says who? Because you can't see it, touch it, or feel it?

If they could, no one would be doing this to a dog or other animal, let alone a baby.

Uh, no, because they don't metabolize on their own nor do they respirate on their own. They share respiration and metabolic function with the mother.

how far are you going to go to stretch for your argument? Why do I even bother?

How am I stretching my argument?

But they are when they're in their mother's womb they are their "property"?

Yes, because they are a part of the mother. If an incubator was sentient, would it not have the right to deny incubation?

 

[Asimov]

Oh. I like this one. Lets use it as the perfect example of oversimplification.

If you want to pay a crack-addicted alcoholic prostitute with HIV to keep her baby and put it up for adoption, please be prepared to adopt her mentally-disabled baby. And be prepared to adopt many more.

Unless you are prepared to do so, stop telling other people they are baby murderers.

Also be prepared to happily pay for all of the unwanted, developmentally challenged people who wind up in the criminal justice system. You know, the ones the far right are so eager to execute as not being worthy members of society.

What a crazy, sick cycle.

I've already used a similar argument. Geometro is adamantly pro-life, yet Geo is not adopting non-aborted babies left, right and center.

Pro-Life means pro-as many babies as possible and who cares once they're born.

 

[KomissarSteve]

The baby has a right to life.

Indeed, because it's a person. But we're not talking about babies; we're talking about fetuses.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Indeed, because it's a person. But we're not talking about babies; we're talking about fetuses.

So it somehow is not a baby just because it is inside of the mother and not yet gone through birth? That is a ridiculous argument. Is it ok for me to go punch pregnant women in the stomach to try to harm the fetus since according to you, a fetus is not a person and doesn't have any rights?

 

[JustOneWay]

So it somehow is not a baby just because it is inside of the mother and not yet gone through birth? That is a ridiculous argument. Is it ok for me to go punch pregnant women in the stomach to try to harm the fetus since according to you, a fetus is not a person and doesn't have any rights?

I suppose that would be a crime for performing an abortion without a license and assult.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I suppose that would be a crime for performing an abortion without a license and assult.

Fine I will give you the assault, but persons are not charged with assault-they are charged with murder in those cases so pro-abortion advocates must also be in favor of charging persons with assault instead of murder in those instances since a fetus is not a person.

 

[KomissarSteve]

imind?
KomissarSteve?
Izzypop?

I didn't realize the original question was addressed towards me.

Obviously, my answer depends upon the circumstances. If it's due to irresponsible behavior, then on a moral level, I think she should be fined. But that doesn't mean that I think such a principle could ever be effectively implemented as a policy.

 

[Asimov]

So it somehow is not a baby just because it is inside of the mother and not yet gone through birth?

Yes, because a human zygote is not a human fetus, and a human fetus is not a human baby, which is not a human adult, or a pubescent human...etc. There are scientific differences.

Is it ok for me to go punch pregnant women in the stomach to try to harm the fetus since according to you, a fetus is not a person and doesn't have any rights?

No, because the mother has rights and that include not being punched in the stomach, and only the mother is at liberty to decide whether or not she can keep the baby, since it is her body.

 

[IzzyPop]

So it somehow is not a baby just because it is inside of the mother and not yet gone through birth?

Yes. That is exactly what makes it not a baby. While still in the uterus it is a fetus.

Calling a pig a horse does not make it so, no matter how much you want to ride it.

That is a ridiculous argument.

Nope. It is a cogent argument.

Is it ok for me to go punch pregnant women in the stomach to try to harm the fetus since according to you, a fetus is not a person and doesn't have any rights?

Nope. The choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is not yours to make unless you are the one pregnant.

A for effort, but the blatant emotionalism and lack of rationality equals failure every time.

 

[Gamezilla]

Please clarify the phrase "unsafe abortions" and provide statistics, thank you.

You could easily go back to the post I was responding to, but whatever. The type of unsafe abortion done by someone that didn't know what the heck they were doing. You know? Posers? People pretending to be doctors or maybe just not knowing what to do. This happens a lot to people who cannot afford to pay the price. Even if it becomes legal, things like this will still happen. So there really is no reason to make it legal, because if things like unsafe abortion is what the Pro-choice people are wanting to fix, then how is making it legal going to fix anything?

 

[IzzyPop]

You could easily go back to the post I was responding to, but whatever. The type of unsafe abortion done by someone that didn't know what the heck they were doing. You know? Posers? People pretending to be doctors or maybe just not knowing what to do. This happens a lot to people who cannot afford to pay the price. Even if it becomes legal, things like this will still happen. So there really is no reason to make it legal, because if things like unsafe abortion is what the Pro-choice people are wanting to fix, then how is making it legal going to fix anything?

You wouldn't happen to have any statistics on this, would you? With a link?

 

[Gamezilla]

You wouldn't happen to have any statistics on this, would you? With a link?

Statistics? Once again, look at what I responding to.

 

[IzzyPop]

Statistics? Once again, look at what I responding to.

I am. And I see no statistics anywhere of any unsafe abortions. I personally have never heard this before and would like to see some outside verification of this. That is what I am asking for. You state 'a lot of people'. How many is a lot. Compared to how many total?

As is currently stands, the only thing we have to go on is one anonymous internet poster makes an assertion I have never seen before. I'm not saying that I don't believe you....wait...yes I am.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Yes, because a human zygote is not a human fetus, and a human fetus is not a human baby, which is not a human adult, or a pubescent human...etc. There are scientific differences.

You can try to justify it any way you can, but the point is one is destroying life. Due to advances in medicine, a fetus can live outside the womb at an earlier and earlier state. To say "its not a baby" simply because it has not passed out of the birth canal is ridiculous.

No, because the mother has rights and that include not being punched in the stomach, and only the mother is at liberty to decide whether or not she can keep the baby, since it is her body.

Once again your argument does not make sense. It can't be murder for one person and not murder for the other one. Since according to you a fetus is not a person, the most one could get for assaulting a pregant woman's stomach would be simple assault, not murder.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Yes. That is exactly what makes it not a baby. While still in the uterus it is a fetus.

You can play word games all you want, but it does not change the fact it is a baby for all intents and purposes and left unchecked, will turn into a person.

Nope. It is a cogent argument.[/QUOTE

No, it is not a cogent argument

Nope. The choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is not yours to make unless you are the one pregnant.

Agreed, but if someone else does it, they shouldn't be charged with murder since the fetus is not a baby correct? and doesn't have the same rights? It can't be murder for one person and not another. So if it's murder for a criminal to do it's also murder for the mother.

A for effort, but the blatant emotionalism and lack of rationality equals failure every time.

LOl sorry I have more than enough rationality. You are the one who doesn't have a rational argument

 

[cantata]

they shouldn't be charged with murder since the fetus is not a baby correct? and doesn't have the same rights? It can't be murder for one person and not another.

If you say so!

Applying cold logic to the question of why a foetus which is intended to be carried to term is afforded different rights from a foetus which is terminated by its mother is quite foolish. The law exists because of the feelings of the expectant mother, not because of the rights of the foetus. The foetus does not have a right not to be murdered. The expectant mother's emotional response to losing a foetus which she expected to carry to term, and which she probably already thinks of as her baby, has everything to do with it.

Anyway, either way, it would be more than assault to punch a pregnant woman in the abdomen with the intention to kill the foetus inside, because the woman's right to control over her reproductive system has been infringed by another person.

 

[IzzyPop]

You can play word games all you want, but it does not change the fact it is a baby for all intents and purposes and left unchecked, will turn into a person.

So using the correct word is playing word games? I'll remember that.

Why not just call it a senior citizen? For all intents and purposes, if left unchecked, it will turn into a senior citizen.

Agreed, but if someone else does it, they shouldn't be charged with murder since the fetus is not a baby correct? and doesn't have the same rights? It can't be murder for one person and not another. So if it's murder for a criminal to do it's also murder for the mother.

Sure it can. It depends on the state. Different states have different laws.

That and the reasons have already been pointed out. You are making the decision, not the mother. The mother wanted to keep the pregnancy. You took that away. Our emotionalism allows us to find that to be a heinous crime and murder works the jury better and allows for stiffer penalties than destruction of property.

LOl sorry I have more than enough rationality. You are the one who doesn't have a rational argument

Then show me why the potential person's rights outweigh the actual person's rights.