Abortion is termination of an "innocent life." Death penalty is termination of someone who committed a capital crime.
For the record I am Anti-baby killing and anti capital punishment.
Nik
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2006
- 16,101
- 3
- 56
No, you said if it can't live on its own, it's not alive. I wasn't making an exception, it's the truth. No baby, even if it can breathe on its own and all that, can survive on its own.
Small children can't survive on their own and it's murder to kill them so your reasoning is flawed.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,048
- 4,695
- 126
You clearly cannot understand what I said. So until then, it isn't worth my time.
You have created a poor definition of "living on your own" (a definition well outside the intended context) and you aren't willing to listen to the intended context. Thus, you lose the debate, and I'm out of here until you are willing to actually debate properly.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Well, 'your time and energy' was more aimed at the proverbial 'you', which is anti-abortion activists.
Apologies for pegging you as an abstinencer - I made the old ASSumption mistake.
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
I just let my religion or government dictate my beliefs. It's sooo freeing. This way I don't suffer any cognitive dissonance about protecting some and killing others.
This is what I was going to post. I don't think you can have it both ways. If killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder, then abortion shouldn't be allowed because you would be killing a human.
On the other hand, if abortion is allowed, then a murderer who kills a pregnant woman should only be charged with the murder of the woman. After all, the "thing" inside isn't really a person yet, right?
I just don't think you can have it both ways.
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
"If the fetus at a certain stage of gestation would be viable outside the womb, the argument goes, then the right of the fetus to life overrides the right of the woman to privacy. But just what does "viable" mean? Even a full-term newborn is not viable without a great deal of care and love. There was a time before incubators, only a few decades ago, when babies in their seventh month were unlikely to be viable. Would aborting in the seventh month have been permissible then? After the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood--as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality.
And why, exactly, should breathing (or kidney function, or the ability to resist disease) justify legal protection? If a fetus can be shown to think and feel but not be able to breathe, would it be all right to kill it? Do we value breathing more than thinking and feeling? Viability arguments cannot, it seems to us, coherently determine when abortions are permissible. Some other criterion is needed. Again, we offer for consideration the earliest onset of human thinking as that criterion.
Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.
"
Also, you can make abortion illegal, but you can't stop it. Just study the history of it, we'll just have more dead desperate women, showing up bleeding to deat at hospitals after botched home jobs.
nope, sorry. if she wanted to make a choice then it is up to her. who am i to tell another person what to do with their body, and what choices to make in life. it's not my role to cast my beliefs or wants on other people, there are plenty of people out there that already do that, they are called christians.
so even if i was involved in the situation, i would happily go along with whatever choice she made, and gladly back her choice.
it always makes me laugh when i see men in abortion protests or rallies. I always wonder if the only reason they are there is to get laid, much like the abortion episode of It's Always Sunny In Philly
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
That's pretty warped of you to say, not all Christians go out trying to recruit others.
Some men actually believe that their sperm is an integral part of making a baby, and so that baby is rightfully just as much theirs as the woman. It's not so laughable that some men are therefore Pro-Life.
sorry, that is a broad generalization, let me fix it. fixed above. not all christians do, but it is part of the christian doctrine to spread the word.
You just have to have faith. Let god wash over you and find that you don't need answers to questions such as these.
Right. So if she had the baby and you didn't want it, and she made you pay child support anyway, what's your excuse on that?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter