Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Funny, I didn't see either SM or myself use the word "Nazi" in those quotes.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Thanks for proving that nobody called you a Nazi.
Do you think the moderators will be convinced of your silly little obfuscation games, or do you think they will just get fed up with your shit and ban you?
Originally posted by Blakemore
Surely you agree in abortion to protect the mother's life or it could be a stillborn, right?
No, I don't.
I don't think she should die to save the life of her unborn child, either.
I think the whole scenerio is something without a good answer, or a good outcome. But with a gun to my head, yes, I probably would side with the scared woman who is fearing for her life.
Originally posted by BlakemoreI see what you did there. Very good, I'll be honest all debates really end up with do you think a woman has the right over her own body, and at what point does a baby growing inside here become independent enough that it matters as much as her? ... Unless you are galan_jesusEthneo
But it sounds like the "1 on the way" is not yet a child. I mean, if life begins at conception then that should count as 3 children, right?
Originally posted by cdtm
No, I don't.I don't think she should die to save the life of her unborn child, either.
I think the whole scenerio is something without a good answer, or a good outcome. But with a gun to my head, yes, I probably would side with the scared woman who is fearing for her life.
...and that brings up one of my pet theories.
Who here would choose the life of a mother over an infant, if you can only save one?
In the choice blake gave, it's not a hard decision. You save the woman, instead of giving her a death sentence for the sake of an unborn child.
In the second case, most would choose the infant. Perhaps not her husband, but who really knows?
These choices come down to feelings.. As much as we intellectualize the issue, we simply do not feel the same way about an unborn child as we do about a born one.
If we did, pro-lifers wouldn't need religion to direct them. We'd have a lot more of a split on the issue.
This despite the fact for all intents and purposes, it's the same being at different stages, who is dead no matter what side of the birth canal they're on.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I see what you did there. Very good, I'll be honest all debates really end up with do you think a woman has the right over her own body, and at what point does a baby growing inside here become independent enough that it matters as much as her? ... Unless you are galan_jesusEthneo
Originally posted by cdtmErr, do fetuses have human rights? Why aren't they counted in censuses or population figures? Why is that "child" got a cord attached to another human for nutrition? Can it breathe? What's it's name? That doesn't come until after birth. If the mother dies, will it survive? I doubt it.
...and that brings up one of my pet theories.Who here would choose the life of a mother over an infant, if you can only save one?
In the choice blake gave, it's not a hard decision. You save the woman, instead of giving her a death sentence for the sake of an unborn child.
In the second case, most would choose the infant. Perhaps not her husband, but who really knows?
These choices come down to feelings.. As much as we intellectualize the issue, we simply do not feel the same way about an unborn child as we do about a born one.
If we did, pro-lifers wouldn't need religion to direct them. We'd have a lot more of a split on the issue.
This despite the fact for all intents and purposes, it's the same being at different stages, who is dead no matter what side of the birth canal they're on.
Because at that point it's literally attached to the mother and it's her choice to do as she wants with it. Period.
That's another thing. Are periods and masturbation abortions too? What about a hospital that has premature born babies in incubators which thn get bombed or destroyed by religious fundamentals (Kuwait, for eg.) or if a surrogate mother has a miscarriage, did she just murder someone else's child?
Anti-abortion is anti-woman.
Also, lol smiley!
Originally posted by wxyzThe Bible is one of the most misogynistic books I've ever had the misfortune to read, so yes.
You think all or most Christians who are anti-abortion are anti-women?
The bottom line is, a zygote, embryo and even a fetus are all attached to the woman, with the exception of incubators. As soon as they are born and the umbilical cord is cut, then they are on their own and not dependent on another life from which they originated.
Originally posted by wxyz
You think all or most Christians who are anti-abortion are anti-women?
Just ignore him. He is obviously trolling... again.
There are plenty of women themselves that are strongly opposed to abortion but don't tell that to him though. Guess they all hate women as well lol.
Anyone with an actual brain who isn't trolling knows that the pro-life stance is not about hating women or denying them a right which they don't actually have, it's about standing up for the unborn who have a fundamental right to life which is the most basic of all rights.
Just hand-waving the pro-life argument away with "you just hate women!" is a strawman argument and anyone who uses it is trolling so just ignore them.
Edit: ... and not everyone who is pro-life is a Christian or even religious at all. You don't have to be religious to recognize that abortion is obviously murder. Science itself says that the fetus is a human being which makes terminating its life murder, by definition.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaebaka
the pro-life stance is not about hating women or denying them a right which they don't actually have, it's about standing up for the unborn
abortion is obviously murder. Science itself says that the fetus is a human being which makes terminating its life murder, by definition.Except murder is unlawful killing, by definition. There has never been a law with the proviso that a prenatal human should be given the same rights as a citizen. You know this.
Originally posted by Blakemore
bakaExcept murder is unlawful killing, by definition. There has never been a law with the proviso that a prenatal human should be given the same rights as a citizen. You know this.
This is really splitting hairs unnecessarily. You know what he means.
If you want to be a linguistic exactitude, then the word he clearly means is "intentional homicide." If you want to be even more of a linguistic exactitude, then it is intentional filicide. In psychology, there is sometimes a distinction made for babies and it would be called infanticide but abortion is usually the homicide of a fetus or embryo, not an infant, so I don't think infanticide applies.
Intentional embricide?
Originally posted by dadudemonHe said murder; murder is a lawful term!
This is really splitting hairs unnecessarily. You know what he means.
If you want to be a linguistic exactitude, then the word he clearly means is "intentional homicide." If you want to be even more of a linguistic exactitude, then it is intentional filicide. In psychology, there is sometimes a distinction made for babies and it would be called infanticide but abortion is usually the homicide of a fetus or embryo, not an infant, so I don't think infanticide applies.What about a zygote?Intentional embricide?