Do pro-choice people say?

[utvolpj]

I can understand the bolded, key is PARENTS (plural) and best interest of the child. I don't think a woman individually deciding to kill an unborn baby fits either criteria.

sure it does. I realize my input was welcomed but also know that ultimately I would defer to my wife's wishes. Becomes even more applicable when the woman is left to make the decision alone because of some useless donor. I am neck-deep in the infant world right now and just know there is a different kind of bond for a mother

some may truly believe that the unborn are not life until birth. For others that belief is a necessity in their choices

 

[etmVol]

It's a woman's choice. It's Her body and it's not right for me to force someone to carry a child they do not want.

This is what I do not understand. The pro-choice crowd claims it's a woman's choice because "it's her body". What is "her body"? Surely you don't mean the unborn child which she is carrying; it cannot be her body as the body of the child is not a complete DNA match to the mother.

So if you can agree that the fetus (which only carries a 50% DNA match with its host) scientifically cannot be the same as the mother, by simple deduction, we can see that the unborn child is NOT "her body" after all. By using DNA, we can also see that the fetus is also human.

So what does that mean? Well, if there is a human being who's life I purposely end, would I not be killing another human? Outside of situations such as war and self-defense, what is the most appropriate word for this? The correct answer would be 'murder'.

What does the lib say? 'Oh, but that fetus hasn't been born yet, so it's not a human being...' So if one of those ASPCA commercials with the sad music and abused animals comes on and shows someone perform an abortion on the unborn puppies - including the brain scrambling and sucking and dismembering of limbs via vacuum - what do you think would happen? Everyone would be appalled at the mutilation and murder of a puppy! Oh, so the unborn dog is a dog, but the unborn human is not a real human? I'm sensing some liberal logic.

Now answer me this: how is that scenario worse than the murder (see how we got there two paragraphs up) of a human baby (again, it's mot the mother's body as the DNA doesn't match)? How can that be justified?

 

[hog88]

sure it does. I realize my input was welcomed but also know that ultimately I would defer to my wife's wishes. Becomes even more applicable when the woman is left to make the decision alone because of some useless donor. I am neck-deep in the infant world right now and just know there is a different kind of bond for a mother

some may truly believe that the unborn are not life until birth. For others that belief is a necessity in their choices

It's a prickly situation for sure. Thank goodness I've never been confronted with a situation like this. I do know that there would be no way in he!! I'd allow my wife/girlpal or what have you to abort a healthy viable child unless her life was in danger. I would fight that in court.

I have also witnessed a situation where a friend had a child aborted against his wishes, he tried in vain to get his GF to just sign over all parental rights with no obligation. That scarred him for a long time.

 

[Velo Vol]

Why are you robbing a living being of its chance at life and denying it's existence as a living being simply because it's still developing?

It doesn't have an existence (as a human) until it reaches the stage where it can carry out human bodily functions.

Do you can an acorn an oak tree?

 

[hog88]

It doesn't have an existence (as a human) until it reaches the stage where it can carry out human bodily functions.

Do you can an acorn an oak tree?

Once it's planted and sprouts, yes. It's a sapling (baby tree).

 

[etmVol]

It doesn't have an existence (as a human) until it reaches the stage where it can carry out human bodily functions.

Do you can an acorn an oak tree?

A co-worker's son was born with some defects, such as not having an anus. Without an anus, he could not perform the important "human bodily function" of removing waste from one's system. Are you saying that his living, breathing, growing son was not a human and did not exist?

My one year old niece is obviously too young to perform "human bodily functions" such as ovulation and reproduction. Is she not yet a human?

I imagine your argument will be something to the effect of "I meant if they cannot do it on their own, without the help of the host mother". My response to that is simple. What would happen if my one year old niece was left unattended for several days? She is too young to fend for herself, so she would end up dead. Since she doesn't have the "human bodily functions" necessary to perform the tasks (find/prepare food, water, shelter, clothes, etc.) required to survive, would that not fit your definition not yet having an existence of a human?

One cannot arbitrarily define when human existence begins, but it sure as hell begins before the child can perform certain "human bodily functions".

 

[Roustabout]

that child could also live a very short life in extreme pain caused by major genetic issues. Every situation is not the same which is why a one-size-fits-all law doesn't work. Parents should be allowed to make decisions which are in the best interest of their child

Could being the operative word. Infanticide is becoming a reality. And your position is the foot in the door.

 

[Septic]

This is what I do not understand. The pro-choice crowd claims it's a woman's choice because "it's her body". What is "her body"? Surely you don't mean the unborn child which she is carrying; it cannot be her body as the body of the child is not a complete DNA match to the mother.

So if you can agree that the fetus (which only carries a 50% DNA match with its host) scientifically cannot be the same as the mother, by simple deduction, we can see that the unborn child is NOT "her body" after all. By using DNA, we can also see that the fetus is also human.

So what does that mean? Well, if there is a human being who's life I purposely end, would I not be killing another human? Outside of situations such as war and self-defense, what is the most appropriate word for this? The correct answer would be 'murder'.

What does the lib say? 'Oh, but that fetus hasn't been born yet, so it's not a human being...' So if one of those ASPCA commercials with the sad music and abused animals comes on and shows someone perform an abortion on the unborn puppies - including the brain scrambling and sucking and dismembering of limbs via vacuum - what do you think would happen? Everyone would be appalled at the mutilation and murder of a puppy! Oh, so the unborn dog is a dog, but the unborn human is not a real human? I'm sensing some liberal logic.

Now answer me this: how is that scenario worse than the murder (see how we got there two paragraphs up) of a human baby (again, it's mot the mother's body as the DNA doesn't match)? How can that be justified?

Since you've obviously attempted to make this a partisan issue by using the word "liberal", are you suggesting that only liberals have abortions? Also, can you explain how as conservatives rally around 'getting the government' out of our personal freedoms (i.e Obamacare) but have no problems having the government dictating terms to individuals on health matters such as this?

 

[utvolpj]

Could being the operative word. Infanticide is becoming a reality. And your position is the foot in the door.

I said could to leave it a bit open for the discussion. In the case that changed my views it was a definite. This isn't a slippery slope kind of thing. Given the proper prenatal care it's not that difficult to figure out very early on

 

[Velo Vol]

One cannot arbitrarily define when human existence begins, but it sure as hell begins before the child can perform certain "human bodily functions".

Heart beat, breathing, brain function, at a minimum.

 

[Septic]

One cannot arbitrarily define when human existence begins, but it sure as hell begins before the child can perform certain "human bodily functions".

A fetus becomes a 'person' at the point of fetal viability. If memory serves, this late in the second trimester at the earliest.

This is not the point however, your personal sense of right and wrong shouldn't be used to dictate personal decisions to others.

 

[Roustabout]

Why is the right against killing babies but for killing violent criminals? You can't scream "NO BIG GOVERNMENT" and then want the government to interject into personal choice. Same way with gay marriage.

That's a faulty analogy. It is incorrect to say that all law is bad law. Or to imply that if someone oppsoes Govt. intervention in one area that they must oppose it everywhere. There is no one size fits all approach.

The issue is one of personhood. Do the unborn have rights? Right now in this country it is legal to kill a baby in the womb. We can argue the phases of pregnancy, but right now it is legal for a mother to destroy a viable person in the womb. You can apply the word choice if that helps assuage the atrocitiy of what is actually happening here. But it doesn't change what is happening.

If you've ever seen an ultrasound, you know that there is a living human being developing. It is only a matter of what stage of development that human life is in. A pregnancy carried to term ALWAYS results in a new human life. It's a fact. Biologically speaking a fertilized egg has 100% of the genetic information it will ever have as a unique lifeform.

 

[utvolpj]

If you've ever seen an ultrasound, you know that there is a living human being developing. It is only a matter of what stage of development that human life is in. A pregnancy carried to term ALWAYS results in a new human life. It's a fact. Biologically speaking a fertilized egg has 100% of the genetic information it will ever have as a unique lifeform.

Always? You need to check the definition of fact

do you have kids? The amount of things that can and do go wrong with pregnancies is astounding

 

[Roustabout]

A fetus becomes a 'person' at the point of fetal viability. If memory serves, this late in the second trimester at the earliest.

This is not the point however, your personal sense of right and wrong shouldn't be used to dictate personal decisions to others.

Hmmm. You just made a statement dictating your personal sense of right and wrong. "YOU SHOULDN'T."
Interesting.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Doesn't surprise me one bit! Is this on your gay cousin side?

No, but he used to drive the short bus that was packed with your relatives.

 

[etmVol]

Since you've obviously attempted to make this a partisan issue by using the word "liberal", are you suggesting that only liberals have abortions?

I certainly do not think that only liberals have abortions, just as I do not think that only conservatives can be gun enthusiasts. My shot across the bow at the left (and while conservative, I definitely do not identify with the majority of the bloated and corrupt big government hustlers that make up the majority of the GOP) is their (in)famous style of logic. Upon review, my first mention of lib should have instead said "What does a pro-choice advocate say?"

But do you not agree that the vast majority of those who are pro-choice rather than pro-life are liberals? Which of those two stances is a liberal likely to hold? Which of those two stances is a conservative likely to hold? Lib and pro-choice may not be as interchangeable as I previously thought, but I don't think that my generalization was far off.

Also, can you explain how as conservatives rally around 'getting the government' out of our personal freedoms (i.e Obamacare) but have no problems having the government dictating terms to individuals on health matters such as this?

So murder is a health matter? Does that mean I can get a prescription to go abort my neighbor? No matter that my neighbor is fully grown, I contend they do not have the complete range of "human bodily functions" necessary for them to live.

I want a small government. I also want murder to remain against the law and punishable by imprisonment and/or death. Now if I had said I am for small government but want the government to abolish alcohol other than wine, you could call me out for being hypocritical (or as I like to call it, one who uses 'liberal logic').

 

[PKT_VOL]

No, but he used to drive the short bus that was packed with your relatives.

lol:

 

[etmVol]

Heart beat, breathing, brain function, at a minimum.

A fetus becomes a 'person' at the point of fetal viability. If memory serves, this late in the second trimester at the earliest.

This is not the point however, your personal sense of right and wrong shouldn't be used to dictate personal decisions to others.

So do you both agree that it is murder once its heart is beating and it can be considered viable?

I agree that my sense of right and wrong is no more important or valuable than yours, and that I should not force that upon you; but I do believe that some moral values are more universal than others (such as don't rape or murder). And regardless of what my personal values are, last time I checked, murder is already against the law.

 

[etmVol]

Always? You need to check the definition of fact

do you have kids? The amount of things that can and do go wrong with pregnancies is astounding

While I completely agree that things can go wrong, and babies can die, I would still have to agree with Roustabout. Just because the new life isn't a long one, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[utvolpj]

While I completely agree that things can go wrong, and babies can die, I would still have to agree with Roustabout. Just because the new life isn't a long one, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

the words "always" and "fact" imply this is the case every time. If that were true there would be no need for your qualifier of "things can go wrong"

 

[etmVol]

the words "always" and "fact" imply this is the case every time. If that were true there would be no need for your qualifier of "things can go wrong"

Even if the baby dies in the womb, that does not mean it wasn't a life.

We can argue the semantics of that all day for a month and not reach an agreement. I just think you two were arguing apples and oranges - what he meant by there always being a life isn't exactly what you took it to mean.

 

[utvolpj]

Even if the baby dies in the womb, that does not mean it wasn't a life.

it means it was not a viable human being

We can argue the semantics of that all day for a month and not reach an agreement. I just think you two were arguing apples and oranges - what he meant by there always being a life isn't exactly what you took it to mean.

I made the assumption he wasn't simply saying "when a baby is alive, it's alive. Indisputable fact!" Perhaps that was wrong

 

[etmVol]

it's means it was not a viable human being

If a baby dies 2 months after birth (well outside of the womb), are they considered a viable human being? Again, semantics.

 

[MercyPercy]

I just find the gall of these folk claiming they would force a person to carry a fetus against their will to be highly selfish and lacking perspective.

It's easy to give out orders when you don't have to live with them.

 

[utvolpj]

If a baby dies 2 months after birth (well outside of the womb), are they considered a viable human being? Again, semantics.

I would say it depends but a living baby delivered into the world is much different than one that dies in the womb. That's not brushed aside as semantics