Originally posted by Drusilla
Why do you care about my womb? What does my fetus have to do with you? What do you want from my baby? What kind of a sicko are you? Mind your own bloody business.
Not meaning to butt in, but what about outside of the womb? Do those same rules apply after the child is born?
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Not meaning to butt in, but what about outside of the womb? Do those same rules apply after the child is born?
Not meaning to butt in, but why is that relevant?
She asked a fair question, a few of them, and rather than answer you just ask irrelevant ones?
Who's talking about outside the womb? We're discussing abortion.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not meaning to butt in, but why is that relevant?She asked a fair question, a few of them, and rather than answer you just ask irrelevant ones?
Who's talking about outside the womb? We're discussing abortion.
-AC
Considering the questions were not directed at me, I was leaving the answer to whom they apply.
It was more to understand her thinking. Abortion is the same as child murder at birth, in every way except legally.
And before you start shouting out retorts -think about why that might be true. Both ways stop a child's life, no matter on the stage of their life or development. Little baby Chrissie was still baby Chrissie before, and her life was still ahead of her whether she was killed in the womb or out of it. The reason you and others like to separate the two is because of some made up scientific response that states that only a born baby is a baby, and only a born baby with a diaper is a growing human being. Just because abortion is "stopping it from becoming a human" (so that you can justify killing it before you are blamed for killing a human) doesnt make the act any different. Killing is killing is killing, no matter what reason, no matter when in a person's life. Is the murder of a 90-year-old any different from the killing of a baby? No. So is the killing of a baby any different from the killing of an unborn, growing child? No.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
It was more to understand her thinking. Abortion is the same as child murder at birth, in every way except legally.
And seeing as murder is solely a legal term, created to define a form of killing, it can't ever be murder. Think > Post. Not Post > Think.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And before you start shouting out retorts -think about why that might be true. Both ways stop a child's life, no matter on the stage of their life or development. Little baby Chrissie was still baby Chrissie before, and her life was still ahead of her whether she was killed in the womb or out of it. The reason you and others like to separate the two is because of some made up scientific response that states that only a born baby is a baby, and only a born baby with a diaper is a growing human being. Just because abortion is "stopping it from becoming a human" (so that you can justify killing it before you are blamed for killing a human) doesnt make the act any different. Killing is killing is killing, no matter what reason, no matter when in a person's life. Is the murder of a 90-year-old any different from the killing of a baby? No. So is the killing of a baby any different from the killing of an unborn, growing child? No.
The difference is, we with brains realise that nothing is ahead of her because the future is a concept, however likely. The future isn't now, contrary to your inept belief, and it's not a human being we're dealing with, contrary to your popular belief, as proven.
Murder IS murder, but abortion isn't murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, and considering murder is ONLY a legal term, it cannot apply to anything legal, or anything that isn't a human being.
Frivolous killing would be a better and more accurate label.
There is a difference.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And seeing as murder is solely a legal term, created to define a form of killing, it can't ever be murder. Think > Post. Not Post > Think.
The difference is, we with brains realise that nothing is ahead of her because the future is a concept, however likely. The future isn't now, contrary to your inept belief, and it's not a human being we're dealing with, contrary to your popular belief, as proven.
A born baby has a hypothetical future too. It cant really do anything at birth any more than breath and cry -which in a way it can do before born as well. (It cant cry because there is only mother-supplied oxygen in the womb). An infant child is as helpless as a fetus. The only reason it is not considered human is because of a dictionary definition- and nothing based off of the dictionary should be used as justification for something as non-trivial as abortion.
Murder IS murder, but abortion isn't murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, and considering murder is ONLY a legal term, it cannot apply to anything legal.
Frivolous killing would be a better and more accurate label.There is a difference.
-AC
Yes, the words are spelled differently. And frivolous implies that it is a trivial killing -an at a whim- selfish decision. Anything like that deserves just as much attention as murder. Also keep in mind, the reasons for killing do not make killing of people any different. ANd it is a person.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Why cant it? "Legally" you are killing the child after it is born -therefore murder. With abortion, I was showing there is no difference, because there isnt.
Well obviously there's a difference, you cretin, because one is murder on a human being, one is killing a foetus or cells.
What you need to realise is that you're showing where you believe a difference exists. There isn't once, this is what kind of ruins your argument.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
A born baby has a hypothetical future too. It cant really do anything at birth any more than breath and cry -which in a way it can do before born as well. (It cant cry because there is only mother-supplied oxygen in the womb). An infant child is as helpless as a fetus. The only reason it is not considered human is because of a dictionary definition- and nothing based off of the dictionary should be used as justification for something as non-trivial as abortion.
Hypothetical, conceptual, imagined. Neither of these mean real, actual, factual. An infant child can breath alone, so to say it's AS helpless as a foetus being kept alive on fluid because it can't breathe, it wrong.
The fact of the matter is; a foetus or cells are nothing more than foetus or cells. They are not a future anything, they have POTENTIAL to become something, that's what the word means. What matters is what they are, as I have proven and as others have.
You fail to see distinctions because doing so would ruin you. I can prove there's distinctions, I have, others have. You have just kept saying "I believe this." with no irrefutable backing.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Please explain that last part "Murder is a legal term so it cannt be used with anythign legal"?
Anything that isn't the unlawful killing of another human being with definite pre-meditated malice and/or intent is not murder.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yes, the words are spelled differently. And frivolous implies that it is a trivial killing -an at a whim- selfish decision. Anything like that deserves just as much attention as murder. Also keep in mind, the reasons for killing do not make killing of people any different. ANd it is a person.
Yes, so call it frivolous killing, because by fact and law it is not murder. You might WANT it to be, but it isn't.
It's not a person; scientifically, medically.
-AC
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Not meaning to butt in, but what about outside of the womb? Do those same rules apply after the child is born?
You've really got to stop with the stupid argument that abortion is equal to killing the kid after it's been born and gone off to kindergarten. That's just ****ing stupid.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotI asked you at what point the fetus obtains the rights you talked about. And you answered. whats so hard about that?
Interesting. Instead of actually answering my question, you ask me my own questions. And ignoring that you have been referring to a "future life" as if it were immutable and predestined.Medically, pregnancy does not even occur until after implantation to the uterus.
Legally, the fetus in utero does not attain the rights attributed to the mother iirc for the duration of gestation. Post-viability abortions are still legal for preservation of the life of the pregnant woman.
I would wager that the basis of your definition of potential human being entails that upon conception the zygote obtains a "soul" based upon your previous religious inclinations.
so thats the method of debate for a prolifer. the debate begins with assuming that a ball of cells is a baby. unless you accept that, they dont want to hear a damn thing. so in order to enter their forum you must confirm their beliefs as fact.
der der "baby" der "child" etc. never mind what it actually is.