Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's something I've always hated about most liberals. I can not, for the life of me, understand how you can be ok with taking the life of an innocent, yet be horrified when it comes to taking the life of someone who deserves it. I understand someone being ok with killing someone who deserves it but being anti abortion. Although I don't believe in either. Anyways, your thoughts?

Different circumstances, different situations, different methods and different motivations behind each act.

Morally?

I just explained it to you...

Because they don't feel that a fetus has an equal right to life as that of an adult person with hopes and dreams and wishes and desires, and therefore hold the woman's right to her body and freedom as higher, say in the same way that a little piggy is an innocent life, but we still kill it just cause it tastes good (not even cause it does physical harm to you, which is what a fetus does)

Additionally they don't feel like they should be in charge of deciding who deserves death. Fetuses don't "deserve death" they are just a small sacrifice compared to a real person...even compared to a real chicken.

You might as well be both since you are murdering a human being but then again you are not an older person.It makes no sence.

And this ''person'' that has no self awareness inside women's body automatically claims her body as its own and leashes her the right to do what she wishes with it because....?

Every time woman menstruates she kills another potential child! Oh the genocide!

My opinion:

A woman deserves the right to abort a bunch of congregated cells in her uterus.

A murdering/raping/molesting criminal who preys upon innocent people and destroys lives deserves to die.

Originally posted by long pig
It's something I've always hated about most liberals. I can not, for the life of me, understand how you can be ok with taking the life of an innocent, yet be horrified when it comes to taking the life of someone who deserves it. I understand someone being ok with killing someone who deserves it but being anti abortion. Although I don't believe in either. Anyways, your thoughts?

I wouldn't say people are "pro-abortion" - we're "pro-choice," because we believe women should have the right to choose whether or not they want to bear the children. Also: Foeti aren't people, and their lives aren't being "taken away from them" - there's nothing to take from them!

Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty on two grounds: 1. Killing damages people, especially executioners; and 2. It doesn't work as a deterrent.

Originally posted by The Rover
1. Killing damages people, especially executioners; and 2. It doesn't work as a deterrent.

1. they took the job...
2. its not meant to be a deterrent.

Originally posted by The Rover
Killing damages people, especially executioners

How did you come to this conclusion?

I worked in the Texas penal system for 5 years and took part in two executions, and I wasn't even slightly affected.

Originally posted by Impediment
How did you come to this conclusion?

I worked in the Texas penal system for 5 years and took part in two executions, and I wasn't even slightly affected.

....well....

Originally posted by Bardock42
....well....

Don't you mock me! shakefist

i really don't see the correlation between the two.

Originally posted by long pig
It's something I've always hated about most liberals. I can not, for the life of me, understand how you can be ok with taking the life of an innocent, yet be horrified when it comes to taking the life of someone who deserves it. I understand someone being ok with killing someone who deserves it but being anti abortion. Although I don't believe in either. Anyways, your thoughts?

That's what I think. The condemned person being led to their death had a shot at life, screwed up, and is now going to pay dearly for it. But the unborn child, on the other hand, is a clean slate; a tabula rasa.

An unborn child doesn't have a slate at all.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
An unborn child doesn't have a slate at all.

Agreed, it might get whacked with a slated, but it doesn't have one.

Originally posted by long pig
It's something I've always hated about most liberals. I can not, for the life of me, understand how you can be ok with taking the life of an innocent, yet be horrified when it comes to taking the life of someone who deserves it. I understand someone being ok with killing someone who deserves it but being anti abortion. Although I don't believe in either. Anyways, your thoughts? It's easy: fetuses aren't people, serial killers are.


Duh.

It's something I've always hated about most conservatives. I can not, for the life of me, understand how you can be unable to understand that there are axiomatic differences between you and other people. It's like you're so obsessed with the "righteousness" of your own beliefs you entirely forget that other ones even exist. Maybe if a conservative was pro-choice and anti-death penalty then you'd have a contradiction to ***** about.

Originally posted by Impediment
My opinion:

A woman deserves the right to abort a bunch of congregated cells in her uterus.

A murdering/raping/molesting criminal who preys upon innocent people and destroys lives deserves to die.

It is murder and what is wrong with giving the baby to someone who needs one?Is people that selfish to think of themselves and not a human being?

A fetus isn't a human being anymore then the mass of sperm cells I clean off of my keyboard every night could be considered human beings.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is murder and what is wrong with giving the baby to someone who needs one?Is people that selfish to think of themselves and not a human being?

No one "needs" a baby...except for Christopher Reeves (too soon?). People should adopt one of the many, many older children from an orphanage or something if they really want one. Babies suck, stem cells rock.


Yeah, I think that sums up my feelings pretty much.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is murder and what is wrong with giving the baby to someone who needs one?Is people that selfish to think of themselves and not a human being?

No, it's not murder. A zygote is just a bunch of congregated cells in a uterus, and not a human being.

You're not a human being until you're in my phone book.


2o3iLNz6QLI

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one "needs" a baby...except for Christopher Reeves (too soon?). People should adopt one of the many, many older children from an orphanage or something if they really want one. Babies suck, stem cells rock.


Yeah, I think that sums up my feelings pretty much.


What's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?

Christopher Walken.

Originally posted by Impediment
What's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?

Christopher Walken. Oh snap!

This is retarded. How the heck can you support abortion and an anti death penalty when abortion is the same as killing someone? They say a fetus is like all the other cells in your body but they don't grow into a human being now do they? What a strange world we live in.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
This is retarded. How the heck can you support abortion and an anti death penalty when abortion is the same as killing someone? They say a fetus is like all the other cells in your body but they don't grow into a human being now do they? What a strange world we live in.
Those embryo didn't grow into a full human being either...

Originally posted by King Kandy
Those embryo didn't grow into a full human being either...

Even while an embryo, the baby still has an identity the moment the genetic material of the mother and father unite.

Originally posted by long pig
It's something I've always hated about most liberals. I can not, for the life of me, understand how you can be ok with taking the life of an innocent, yet be horrified when it comes to taking the life of someone who deserves it. I understand someone being ok with killing someone who deserves it but being anti abortion. Although I don't believe in either. Anyways, your thoughts?

I seriously doubt that most true liberals are what you've described. They are most especially misconstrude because of your own definition. When you really think about it -given your assumptions- you're pretending that all liberals consider themselves enlightened, unreasonably and at the expense of folks like yourself. However, you also ascribe to them the religious hang-ups you've also taken from them because most people of your perspective like to think that liberals dismiss god; which is to say morality, at all. However, most people, liberal or otherwise, ill-consider what is primarily preached by western religions. So, don't dismiss that liberals are, as a whole, opposed to the death penalty. For that matter, do or do not kill babies with impunity but ponder a serial killer. While my liberal perspective certainly takes into consideration that your possible baby is going to suck up resources that are finite, it also allows for state-murder AND abortion. What you can't comprehend, though, is that not everyone needs a god-hang-up like yours to define morals. Your supposition is that I care about a fetus any more than I do a sadistic murderer; this is a mistake. This assumption is why terms like 'bleeding-heart' and 'liberal media' are bullshit.

I think Symmetric Chaos pointed the problem out correctly. If you take the pro-life axioms of morality and apply them to pro-choicers it gives a contradiction, but one that is meaningless.


Conversely pro-choicers do the same thing when they say "how can pro-lifers be against abortion but for the death penalty" which does happen as well. For most pro-choicers that is a contradiction, with pro-life axioms that makes perfect sense though.


Of course that's a simplification of pro-life and pro-choice, people hold those beliefs for different reasons, but that is one fundamental problem in the debate

Originally posted by Impediment
No, it's not murder. A zygote is just a bunch of congregated cells in a uterus, and not a human being.

You're not a human being until you're in my phone book.


2o3iLNz6QLI

It is a human being it been proven.It grows in you when you are pregnant.You are actly making another human being.That is what makes abortions so sick.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is a human being it been proven.It grows in you when you are pregnant.You are actly making another human being.That is what makes abortions so sick.

It's not a person with equal legal standing. Human being is too fuzzy a word. It is a being with human DNA, sure, but that's not what people try to imply when they say it's a human being.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Even while an embryo, the baby still has an identity the moment the genetic material of the mother and father unite.

Why draw the line there? Every egg has the potential to become a person.

Who am I to tell a woman she has a to have a kid,
and who am I to say someone has been so evil as to deserve death.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why draw the line there? Every egg has the potential to become a person.

I dont think its a "Why draw the line" kind of argument. Would it not be like,oh whats the concept where the atom is only an atom when observed otherwise it is incohesive? Like it has not manifest or come into being unless consciously observed. This is the same; its a blob of DNA and nerve bundles until you as the observer give it a SOUL.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by Liberator
Who am I to tell a woman she has a to have a kid,
and who am I to say someone has been so evil as to deserve death. The father.
The judge.

Originally posted by Samurai4Hire
I dont think its a "Why draw the line" kind of argument. Would it not be like,oh whats the concept where the atom is only an atom when observed otherwise it is incohesive? Like it has not manifest or come into being unless consciously observed. This is the same; its a blob of DNA and nerve bundles until you as the observer give it a SOUL.

Just a thought.

What?

Originally posted by BackFire
Different circumstances, different situations, different methods and different motivations behind each act. Right. Every individual has different reasons for thinking somethings right or wrong. A person who tells you that they're anti death penalty when they're calm will shoot the guy who raped their kid on sight. It's easy for people to say they're for or against something on paper, but their true feelings are sometimes even unknown to them until the situation presents itself. People who say they're pro-life will march right into the abortion clinic if certain circumstances move them to.

Hahahahaaa, Liberals are funny.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahahaaa, Liberals are funny. I think the whole liberal vs conservative stuff is pure sh!t. People really aren't one or the other in truthfulness they just represent rough categories and the terms create an illusionary enemy. Absolutely ridiculous that so much of the country has bought into such an obvious, us vs them, distraction.

We're all countrymen but we're pushed by rich people to fight while they enjoy the true definition of enjoying pleasures liberally. Every person who owns a mansion has done something very, very liberal. A mansion is in no way conservative. Now how many politicians live in a comfy little house?

I get the feeling this forum doesn't permit actual thought process, because all these opinions are as contrived and shallow as the sort of ***** who gets an abortion.

You know... time has taught me a lot of things, one of which, is you gotta' pick your battles. You want a unique view on abortion? I'm a communist. Arguably an anarchist/nihilist, and my view is... if abortion was justified, I'd be for it. It just so happens it never is.

Justified would be eugenics. Like for example if we could predict a child would be born a homosexual. However, abortion is never used like this. Instead it's just used haphazardly by whiny ass women, who give some half ass excuse like "I was raped", or "I'm just not ready", or even just "I don't feel like having a kid". The thinly veiled sincerity comes off the moment you press it. Revealing the ugly face of capitalist entitlement. Thats the only reason abortion is legal in this country, or any country, is because

A: It makes people money. People who aren't you. Regardless of your position.

And B: It controls the population. Because God forbid the cattle be so numerous that they be difficult to count. Politics makes a lot more sense when you stop thinking of humans as "people" and more like "livestock". One out of three pregnancies ends in abortion. Can you imagine if it didn't? You think I'm actually worried about poverty and famine? I'm already poor... no, it's the ELITE who worry about their house of cards falling, when all of a sudden 300 million becomes 400 million, and that's more people breaking their stupid laws, not paying their taxes, going against their conditioning, etc. It makes their control grid are the more difficult to maintain. That's why I agree with the right about these faux, pathetic, loser liberal leftists. Lenin was right. They really are infantile and worrisome. They're not just bad for communism, they're bad for humanity. People should be reproducing. Regardless of if they'd make good parents or not. People have been doing it sense the dawn of time. No one said you had to be a good parent till about a hundred years ago, just suck it up and do it. Or don't, throw it in the woods, I don't care. But it's a crime against humanity to abort it.

Everytime I think about some dumb ***** having an abortion, I think about that's another chance of freedom down the drain. Because society is still too orderly... still too controllable... it needs numerous people running around, screaming "row row, fight the power!" and the fenced in areas break apart. If we are cattle, our greatest weapon is our young. We produce so many young, our farmer masters just can't milk and domesticate them all. Chaos equals freedom.

Also, it's just common sense. People are fricking stupid. The same way the pro-choice says that some people aren't equipped to BE parents, they aren't equipped to make life and death decisions either. Why are they just dumb enough to not make good parents, but smart enough to kill their own child? That's ridiculous. It's patronizing their excuses. It's not even like we're a pro choice ****ing country. I can't even smoke a God damn cigarette without putting a down payment, but you're going to tell me you're "pro choice". Give me a break. I'll believe you're pro choice when you kick one of the moderators in the nuts.



So yes, out of principle, and out of a high desire to see people repopulate, I think abortion should be illegal. But abortion in and of itself does not bother me. Because the same way abortion has been used to degrade the poor, the handicapped, and generally all human beings with the destruction of basic decency and family unit... we could use it to degrade homosexuals. If I had the money, I'd open up an abortion clinic just for women who said they had a gay baby. And at first, the useful idiot liberals would LOVE it. They'd dance in joy at the irony like that bumper sticker "I hope the next child you don't abort is a gay, liberal, atheist". But then even their dumb asses would start to figure out the implications. That I'm REWARDING hatred toward homosexuals, even if it's all based on a lie. There's no real way for me to prove a gay fetus from a straight, but it doesn't matter, because it's already implanted in their subconscious that being gay makes you inferior, because you're aborting them. Thats how humans got conditioned to this point to begin with. Mostly because an elite few want power, rather then to enforce morality.

As far as the death penalty, I'm against that too. I'm against any organized judiciary system. I'd rather people run wild in the streets, hacking each other up with machetes, then risk being deemed unfit to live by society or by some pretentious judge. I can deal with death, but I can't deal with class struggle being the cause of death. There's no reason I or anyone else should have to die because others deemed it so. Someone should have to WORK to see me die. They should have to get up off their ass and ****ing kill me themselves. Besides... every communist revolutionary has tried something. Mao tried to appeal to third world peasants, Lenin tried a vanguard party monopoly, Trotsky tried appealing to your typical uneducated middle class citizen for direct democracy, Stalin tried appealing to the same demographic for nationalism, and Marx said to appeal to the working class of the world... But not one of them has attempted to appeal to the criminal class. A class that makes up more then twenty percent of our nations, and exist solely to be used for cheap labor by bourgeois, and because deep down, there's a lot of sociopaths in the world who just aren't happy unless they're enslaving and hurting other people. We enjoy having prisoners so we can say we're better then them. Society is a sick game played by sado-masochists. I do not support jail, I do not support the death penalty, I BARELY support psychological conditioning. I'd rather deal with rapists and murderers then have some jackass getting to take a gallant stroll on his high horse.

In fact, in the book I am currently working on, I promote reproduction even by less then "welcome" means... IE: tricking a girl into sleeping with you, non-consenting physical coercion, whatever it takes to conceive a child. I do not condone sex of any kind that results otherwise. Because any sex that doesn't see a baby at the end of it, is just giving into your programming. That hedonistic, unthinking, shit programming, where you live your life, running around, trying to impress other people, desperately clinging to order, law, and rules... begging, pleading for mercy. As your world gets smaller and smaller as they suffocate you with higher and higher standards. Sex has become a drug. An escape from reality. People who have sex outside of reproduction may as well be mentally retarded. Divorced from any concept of what's going on. If you want to forget, you're useless not only to me, but to yourself.

Sex for me isn't a game, it isn't about status, or enjoyment... it's a weapon. Be it the weapon of fighting against my class struggle as the declared inferior gender by our feminist society, or a weapon in producing enough God damn kids to destabilize said society. You want to know how tyrannical life really is? I have to do Google search just to spell half of the words in the English language. I cannot even fathom grammar without a dictionary by my side. Such is a language created by rich white slavers to insure they were the only ones who knew how to communicate beyond the most primitive of desires and needs... Meanwhile, the majority of people's ability to coherently express any emotion or thought is degrading. Not JUST because of the convenience of Twitter and Facebook as instant transmission of words, but because they actively propagate it by character limits, and controlling the flow of information via "moderation". If others can decide what you see and write, your mind is under attack. They are raping you. You are in danger.

Be pro-choice for something tangible.

/facepalm

I wan't those 30 seconds I wasted reading any of that back

Originally posted by JimProfit
I'm a communist. Arguably an anarchist/nihilist

if there is anything meaningful to take from this post, here it is:

no, you are not an anarchist. not even close. you don't even understand the first thing about the concept

anarchists want people to live free of coercieve influences they have no influence over, such as the state.

you are a fascist. you believe you have the right to do whatever you want to whoever you want, and people dont have the right to do anything about it. that is the literal definition of fascism, just applied to an individual and not a state apparatus

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a person with equal legal standing. Human being is too fuzzy a word. It is a being with human DNA, sure, but that's not what people try to imply when they say it's a human being.

Why don't you think that it is not a human being?

Originally posted by JimProfit
I'm a communist. Arguably an anarchist/nihilist, and my view is... if abortion was justified, I'd be for it. It just so happens it never is.



OMG, no way! I'm a communist too. I even live in a communist country. That's the extent of my communism.

Now let's have communism measuring contest.

How can you be an anarchist then preach on about abortion the way you do. It's somewhat strange that you'd give yourself the liberty to decide what someone else does with their own body...as an anarchist, of course.

Originally posted by inimalist
anarchists want people to live free of coercieve influences they have no influence over, such as the state.

you are a fascist. you believe you have the right to do whatever you want to whoever you want, and people dont have the right to do anything about it. that is the literal definition of fascism, just applied to an individual and not a state apparatus

But he does want to live free from coercion. By being a totalitarian (which is what I think you really mean) he maximizes his personal freedom.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But he does want to live free from coercion. By being a totalitarian (which is what I think you really mean) he maximizes his personal freedom.

maybe authoritarian, my understanding of what differs totalitarian from fascism/authoritarianism is that in the fascist state, they only care that you hang leader's portrait in your home, in the totalitarian state, you have to belies it, as in it consumes the totality of your person and life.

I could be wrong, I'm not sure of the subtle differences between the three.

all I knows is it ain't anarchy!

I actually made a video about it, I call it anarcho-fascism. I'm half joking of course. I say "half", because I just take my real views, and just kick them into overdrive for the drama of it all. Sort of like Steven Colbert, but self satire.

watch?v=oms_JXkE2Ks <--Just put that at the end of a youtube url and you can see my video. I call it anarcho-fascism/anarcho-statism. Either one is acceptable, and I just love making Jacob Spinny butthurt, because he's such a stereotypical Rand Roid.

But yes, I don't consider "controlling women's bodies" anymore an infringement on rights then I would "controlling a computer". Women have an asset. They are using their uterus to deny humanity it's rightful destiny as the dominant species in the universe. Women are basically biological terrorists. Either they try to entrap you in child support, marriage, or abortion. Either way, to women, life centers around the vagina. I look at women as some sort of thief who is somehow keeping mankind from getting the most out of production. Like if some thugs stole all the water in a dam, or blocked the sun and told us they wouldn't unblock it till we listened to their demands. Women's reproductive organs are not a right, they're a tool. That makes a woman a tool, until we evolve into asexual beings. Which trust me, I probably want more then you do...

Besides, whatever "rights" you think I'm infringing on by "controlling women's bodies", is nothing compared to what happens in "population control". Whether or not you want to believe it's "consenting", the fact is, it's easier to control 300 million, then 400 million. Therefore, the more babies, the more freedom. You "blend in", and it becomes more difficult to license, restrict, condition, and leash everybody.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Why don't you think that it is not a human being?

Like I explained, I believe the terminology is ambiguous. When you say "human being" you mean a legal/spiritual person with human rights. When I say "human being" I mean a life form with human DNA regardless of rights. So we are talking about completely different concepts, and anyone admitting that the fetus is a "human being" does not accept the inference you'd derive based on your definition of the word.

Do you understand what I mean? I can try to make it more understandable if something is unclear.

oms_JXkE2Ks

K, so I made it about one minute into the video.

You mispronounced lots of those political terms which made it difficult for me to even pay attention. I'm fine with misspelling words every now and then but at least know how to pronounce them. One of my old professors said, "You can't use a word if you don't know what it means and know how to pronounce it." He wasn't referring to actually using, it is symbolic of how seriously people will take you if you do try to use it by violate those two rules.




So, I watched the rest of the vid. You didn't really define anarcho-fascism. You tried to define it by what it must lack in order to be defined as such, which is not how you define anything. For instance, if you were to define an apple, you could not define it as follows:

"An apple is not furry and it doesn't have eyeballs."

Also, in case you actually wanted to know what it was:

http://www.diclib.com/cgi-bin/d1.cgi?l=en&base=amslang&page=showid&id=249

- The theory that an anarchic society, having no infringements, can and should be brought about through a harsh authoritarian state. It is believed that since the people don't come to this freedom on their own, it must be imposed on them.

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

I wan't those 30 seconds I wasted reading any of that back
Thanks for the heads up, I went and read the opening line and then skipped right to the closing, ignoring all the other nonsense in between. I feel I got 99.9% of what this person's ranting about.

Originally posted by JimProfit
I get the feeling this forum doesn't permit actual thought process, because all these opinions are as contrived and shallow as the sort of ***** who gets an abortion.

Be pro-choice for something tangible.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's easy: fetuses aren't people, serial killers are.



Only if you accept definitions of what constitute "people" as accurate.

It's a debatable topic, with scientific support on both sides...

what is a person LL? I'm curious.

Lets expand on the logic behind the laws:



So what if an infant is a human? If a person restricted their "murder" to their own infants, that makes them no danger to myself, or society in general. So, why should we care whether or not someone murders their own kin?

The "inalienable rights" against murder are extended to all human beings out of self interest. We don't want to be deprived of such rights, so we're forced to extend these rights to all people.

And yet, where's the self interest in protecting someone elses children? why not adopt a stance that, say, children are property of their parents, and thus the parents can do what they like to the child. Even kill them, if necessary?

After all, children are a drain on the parents... Maybe they miscalculated their ability to care for the kids. Maybe society would be better off without a future burden on society...

And, as someone else in this thread claimed of fetuses, you could also apply to infants in that they have no dreams, aspirations... probably not even self awareness.

Not that I subscribe to any of this, but I think the debate on fetus vs infant takes a lot of things for granted, such as the inalienable rights humans have simply for being human...

Resorting to the "human rights" answer is, imo, intellectually lazy, as it doesn't really answer at all what the difference is between killing a fetus and an infant. All it does is address the question using the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition, e.g. our tradition of treating anyone that fits our definition of "human" as deserving of special protections.

So, an infant is a human. So what?

Originally posted by cdtm
Lets expand on the logic behind the laws:



So what if an infant is a human? If a person restricted their "murder" to their own infants, that makes them no danger to myself, or society in general. So, why should we care whether or not someone murders their own kin?

The "inalienable rights" against murder are extended to all human beings out of self interest. We don't want to be deprived of such rights, so we're forced to extend these rights to all people.

And yet, where's the self interest in protecting someone elses children? why not adopt a stance that, say, children are property of their parents, and thus the parents can do what they like to the child. Even kill them, if necessary?

After all, children are a drain on the parents... Maybe they miscalculated their ability to care for the kids. Maybe society would be better off without a future burden on society...

And, as someone else in this thread claimed of fetuses, you could also apply to infants in that they have no dreams, aspirations... probably not even self awareness.

Not that I subscribe to any of this, but I think the debate on fetus vs infant takes a lot of things for granted, such as the inalienable rights humans have simply for being human...

Resorting to the "human rights" answer is, imo, intellectually lazy, as it doesn't really answer at all what the difference is between killing a fetus and an infant. All it does is address the question using the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition, e.g. our tradition of treating anyone that fits our definition of "human" as deserving of special protections.

So, an infant is a human. So what?

QFT

we aren't a superstitious spiritual people anymore, we know there is no physical difference between a fetus about to be born in a womb and a new-born infant, and yet we protect one and kill the other like we are from the medieval ages, and somehow like we think "human rights" are something that are spiritually gifted to a fetus during child-birth or something.

Originally posted by truejedi
we aren't a superstitious spiritual people anymore, we know there is no physical difference between a fetus about to be born in a womb and a new-born infant, and yet we protect one and kill the other like we are from the medieval ages, and somehow like we think "human rights" are something that are spiritually gifted to a fetus during child-birth or something.

IIRC, the way the law is currently set up a baby about to be born (last couple months) is treated the same as a newborn. It's an arbitrary line, yes, but any line we draw will be arbitrary.

i believe it was the ex-President Bush that stopped late-term abortions. before that, they were legal.

Originally posted by truejedi
QFT

we aren't a superstitious spiritual people anymore, we know there is no physical difference between a fetus about to be born in a womb and a new-born infant, and yet we protect one and kill the other like we are from the medieval ages, and somehow like we think "human rights" are something that are spiritually gifted to a fetus during child-birth or something.
Um, what? Almost everywhere, you can only have an abortion if the fetus is too young to survive on its own...

now granted, 18 weeks is the youngest to survive so far.