Pro choice crowd, when do you consider a fetus to be a human life?

Jan Volkes said:

Every one an imagined sign.

Click to expand...

Of course, and to everyone here that thinks it's ok to kill little babies I say...
'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'

Willtor said:

Well, there's obviously quite a lot of cause to be concerned about the mothers. But expression of that kind of concern is typically written off as "paying women to have babies." That aside, though...

I don't know if you're defending malvina's position, but I'm not sure it can be considered anything appropriately called "Pro-Life."

Click to expand...

They didn't have to become mothers - they chose their bit of fun and have to suffer the consequences. We are put on this earth to create not to kill

malvina said:

They didn't have to become mothers - they chose their bit of fun and have to suffer the consequences. We are put on this earth to create not to kill

Click to expand...

Well, obviously, not all of them chose. But I take your point.

Nevertheless, that's hardly a response to the post you quoted.

malvina said:

We are put on this earth to create not to kill

Click to expand...

We were not 'put' on this earth we arrived at this point by killing as much as we needed, we are animals just like all the other animals, I know it doesn't suit you to believe that but it's true none the less, your denial changes nothing just as the believers in Thor, Zeus or a thousand other so call 'gods' changed nothing.

Jan Volkes said:

We were not 'put' on this earth we arrived at this point by killing as much as we needed, we are animals just like all the other animals, I know it doesn't suit you to believe that but it's true non the less, your denial changes nothing just as the believers in Thor, Zeus or a thousand other so call 'gods' changed nothing.

Click to expand...

You opinion seems
'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'

pat34lee said:

Does that mean you agree the decision was illegal?

Click to expand...

^ That's some pretty poor logic. No I do not agree the decision was illegal.

malvina said:

Of course, and to everyone here that thinks it's ok to kill little babies I say...
'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'

Click to expand...

Then you are talking about no one.

malvina said:

You opinion seems
'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'

Click to expand...

Do you think that facts are just opinions?

Willtor said:

Well, there's obviously quite a lot of cause to be concerned about the mothers. But expression of that kind of concern is typically written off as "paying women to have babies." That aside, though...

I don't know if you're defending malvina's position, but I'm not sure it can be considered anything appropriately called "Pro-Life."

Click to expand...

I didn't see mavina's position. Most women today abort their children for convenience. Nothing more. Their convenience or inconvenience doesn't concern me in the least. The fact that they are told by our government that it's ok to screw anyone, any time because you won't have to face the consequences does concern me. Taxpayers will even pick up the bill for condoms.

AirPo said:

^ That's some pretty poor logic. No I do not agree the decision was illegal.

Click to expand...

What is poor about it? It is the legislature's job to pass laws, the executive to sign them and the judiciary to enforce the law. How would you think that it's ok for the courts to write new laws and grant new rights by way of judicial decision?

pat34lee said:

I didn't see mavina's position. Most women today abort their children for convenience. Nothing more. Their convenience or inconvenience doesn't concern me in the least. The fact that they are told by our government that it's ok to screw anyone, any time because you won't have to face the consequences does concern me. Taxpayers will even pick up the bill for condoms.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting the idea that the government is telling anyone such a thing: people paid by the government is one thing, but it isn't outright policy that free love should be encouraged, since I imagine government paid employees can also do abstinence only education and still be considered to be doing "sex ed" because there isn't anything standardized.

So the inconvenience of others doesn't pique your interest at all? And you're supposed to be the one that's compassionate?

pat34lee said:

What is poor about it? It is the legislature's job to pass laws, the executive to sign them and the judiciary to enforce the law. How would you think that it's ok for the courts to write new laws and grant new rights by way of judicial decision?

Click to expand...

They're granting new rights by judicial scrutiny, it's not something that's done haphazardly and should be done with consideration of other interrelated rights as well. Just because someone has the right to abort doesn't mean everyone is forced to do so.

Belk said:

What should we use to determine if it is OK to kill another human being? Why is it not OK to use personhood?

Click to expand...

A corporation is legally a person, but Texas hasn't executed one, yet.

pat34lee said:

What is poor about it? It is the legislature's job to pass laws, the executive to sign them and the judiciary to enforce the law. How would you think that it's ok for the courts to write new laws and grant new rights by way of judicial decision?

Click to expand...

1 out of 3 ain't bad.
I don't think it's ok for the courts to write laws since they do not in fact write laws.

muichimotsu said:

Not sure where you're getting the idea that the government is telling anyone such a thing: people paid by the government is one thing, but it isn't outright policy that free love should be encouraged, since I imagine government paid employees can also do abstinence only education and still be considered to be doing "sex ed" because there isn't anything standardized.

So the inconvenience of others doesn't pique your interest at all? And you're supposed to be the one that's compassionate?

Click to expand...

Look up statistics on how many schools teach abstinence only and how many hand out free condoms. Colleges too.

When it comes to comparing inconvenience to death, my concern and compassion goes to the ones being killed.

AirPo said:

1 out of 3 ain't bad.
I don't think it's ok for the courts to write laws since they do not in fact write laws.

Click to expand...

If abortion and homosexual marriages are not laws, then why should anyone enforce being able to do either?

pat34lee said:

Look up statistics on how many schools teach abstinence only and how many hand out free condoms. Colleges too.

When it comes to comparing inconvenience to death, my concern and compassion goes to the ones being killed.

Click to expand...

Handing out condoms is not encouraging sex in itself, merely that you should be safe should it come up. That kind of conflation doesn't constitute a valid argument, but more appeals to a simplistic perspective of how our attitude on sex works in regards to being told about it. Just because I was given condoms in college doesn't mean I immediately thought about having sex with someone anymore than knowing about sex in junior high made me want to have sex.

Death is not always something significant when what dies is little more than bacteria. To insist on something being other than what it is constitutes delusion and persistently at that when you try to utilize said category mistake to push a guilt trip rhetoric that one is killing a "baby" when that doesn't follow by a general standard.

And when I say inconvenience, I'm not strictly talking about minor issues like getting stuck in traffic: I'm talking about any variety of it, such as government malfeasance and the like causing people who can't afford healthcare to not even have a chance to get it, among other things. And the inconvenience of being pregnant in spite of taking birth control is something that you apparently don't comprehend.

pat34lee said:

If abortion and homosexual marriages are not laws, then why should anyone enforce being able to do either?

Click to expand...

Because they're rights in terms of constitutional protection. Laws are not the only thing that has technical weight in regards to policy and the like. Pretty basic civics stuff.

malvina said:

Of course, and to everyone here that thinks it's ok to kill little babies I say...
'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'

Click to expand...

You would really struggle to find anyone who thinks it's OK to kill little babies.

David Brider said:

You would really struggle to find anyone who thinks it's OK to kill little babies.

Click to expand...

I don't want kids, but I don't wish them to die, as annoying as they can be later on or even as babies. Infanticide is a decision that shouldn't need to be made in a day and age where abortion is safe and accessible, though I can understand the principle of wanting to not waste potential. However, that can be taken too far like anything else.