Go back
abortion

abortion

Debates

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
No. And no law has ever treated it as such (correctly).
Why do you believe that an unborn child with a face, arms, hands, legs, feet and feelings, is not a human being?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
No. And no law has ever treated it as such (correctly).
'Unborn' is pretty broad, did you catch that? I mean, there is a point at which an unborn child is fully developed and can live outside the womb. Are you saying then that you support all rights to abortion, even those in the third trimester? Partial birth abortion?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Well at least the masses would be better represented. For example, you say that Mississippi is backwards for outlawing it completely as where others might simply say they are conservative and God fearing. Conversely, those in Mississippi would probably look at California who would keep it legal as being morally bankrupt and Godless in comparison. I guess i ...[text shortened]... ties present what they should or should not do, therefore, why not make all parties "happier"?
its not a matter of "perspective" Mississippi ranks last or close to last in almost all category's related to education, quality of life, health, etc... its the backward ignorance that permeates the state that keeps it there.

disclaimer: I'm sure there some rational intellegent people in mississippi, they're just harder to find, same goes for Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, and South Carolina.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Why do you believe that an unborn child with a face, arms, hands, legs, feet and feelings, is not a human being?
Your knowledge of the development of the human fetus is extraordinarily limited; are you claiming that a one day old zygote has ANY of those features?

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SJ247
'Unborn' is pretty broad, did you catch that? I mean, there is a point at which an unborn child is fully developed and can live outside the womb. Are you saying then that you support all rights to abortion, even those in the third trimester? Partial birth abortion?
My position on this matter is pretty well known in this forum: it has been repeated many times. I am referring to non-viable fetuses. It would be a little inconvenient to state that in every sentence, however.

There is, of course, no such thing as "partial birth" abortion; that is a ridiculous made up term by anti-abortion fanatics.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your knowledge of the development of the human fetus is extraordinarily limited; are you claiming that a one day old zygote has ANY of those features?
Of course not. Obviously not. But neither had I seen anything from you about what stage of development you did or did not support killing the kid.

You still have not really answered the question though. Instead you just came back in the expected insulting and hateful way you usually do.

Does this mean that you believe viable fetuses are human beings who should not be killed, while non-viable fetuses are not human beings, and can therefore be ripped asunder?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Of course not. Obviously not. But neither had I seen anything from you about what stage of development you did or did not support killing the kid.

You still have not really answered the question though. Instead you just came back in the expected insulting and hateful way you usually do.

Does this mean that you believe viable fetuses are human bein ...[text shortened]... t be killed, while non-viable fetuses are not human beings, and can therefore be ripped asunder?
Yes. A non-viable fetus cannot exist outside of the confines of the woman's body and as it is her body she is free to do with what is inside it as she pleases. This is the basic Natural Right of self-autonomy.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes. A non-viable fetus cannot exist outside of the confines of the woman's body and as it is her body she is free to do with what is inside it as she pleases. This is the basic Natural Right of self-autonomy.
I believe Roe V Wade decided viability was at the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or about 24 weeks.

Here is a picture of a fetus at 22 weeks.

http://www.pregnancy.org/images/pregnancy/pregnancycalendar/22weeks177x267.jpg

Here is the web page from where it came, which shows fetal development for the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment2.php

Are you saying you would have no moral pangs about stabbing this baby to death, or poisoning him/her, or crushing in his/her skull so as to be more easily removed from the womb, because he/she is not a human being and therefore has no Natural Rights at all?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I believe Roe V Wade decided viability was at the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or about 24 weeks.

Here is a picture of a fetus at 22 weeks.

http://www.pregnancy.org/images/pregnancy/pregnancycalendar/22weeks177x267.jpg

Here is the web page from where it came, which shows fetal development for the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

http://www.pregnancy.o ...[text shortened]... d from the womb, because he/she is not a human being and therefore has no Natural Rights at all?
Your emotional hysteria is comical.

My point regarding the very basic right of self-autonomy stands. Do you have an argument to produce against it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In some states, perhaps many or all--lawyers weigh in please,--when a sixteen year old girl gets pregnant, a rape has occurred. She must be 18 to consent.
Unless it's another minor.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Well at one time slaves in the deep south were viewed as livestock, therefore, you could have made the same argument about them at one time. You could have argued that you were infringing upon the rights of the slave owners for arresting them for maltreating or killing their slaves as they pleased.
Slaves are people. Embryos are not.

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Amazing. You don't think an unborn child is human and needs protection under our laws.

You'd love China even more!!!

Children by definition are already born. "Unborn child" is a paradox, like "nonreflective mirror".

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
To white wash the decision to kill a human being as a self-autonomous "right to choose" is despicable. Shame on you and on your murdering liberal ilk. How many babies have been butchered so the abortion industry's "medical practitioners" can keep paying their bills? Go look at a few pictures of babies in the womb. They have faces, arms, hands, and feet ...[text shortened]... n smile. Then come back and tell us all that they aren't human beings. It doesn't wash.
So you are only concerned with fetuses at an advanced stage of development, right?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Why do you believe that an unborn child with a face, arms, hands, legs, feet and feelings, is not a human being?
Chimpanzees have those things too.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I believe Roe V Wade decided viability was at the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or about 24 weeks.

Here is a picture of a fetus at 22 weeks.

http://www.pregnancy.org/images/pregnancy/pregnancycalendar/22weeks177x267.jpg

Here is the web page from where it came, which shows fetal development for the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

http://www.pregnancy.o ...[text shortened]... d from the womb, because he/she is not a human being and therefore has no Natural Rights at all?
That's the Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy I think. Stop being irrational.

EDIT - Specifically, Appeal to Pity.