If a girl is raped and pregnant, should she keep the baby?
03 Sep 2011, 2:45 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
How are blood donations related, your body can generate more blood cells and you have to be over a certain weight to safely give blood.
It has to do with being forced to donate from your body for the good of another organism, person or otherwise. For you it would only be 9 months, and you could potentially save a life with every donation! As for weight, that's only because they want to take a full unit under current rules; with the proposed legislation, they could simply adjust the amount of blood take so that you'd just be miserable for 9 months rather than dead.
What you are saying is we should legalize murder because you don't want to deal with a child being in your womb for 9 months. What you are saying is that the child is somehow not human, because you know that Roe v. Wade might get tossed out if the child is recognized as being another human being.
This isn't about forcing anything, this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months, what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence. Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to justify infanticide, such as a simple headache being the justification for a late-term abortion.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
It's a hypothetical question. If there were no such thing as life support, do you think someone should be forced to do this? Can't you just answer the question on principle rather than split hairs to avoid it?
It's also a stupid question. You are suggesting someone be forced to give up an organ, and comparing that to a child being in the womb for 9 months. Unless you have developed an artificial womb, your example is rather idiotic for the simple fact the child is present in the womb already, and what you are advocating is the murder of a child because you don't want the burden of said child being inside you for 9 months. I don't view women as incubators and I consider rape to be wrong, however it isn't just the woman's rights we need to consider because the child has rights too.
We are left with a situation where there are two bad situations: one where the woman is essentially carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and the other is the murder of the child depriving the child of his/her right to exist.
The lesser of the two evils here is the woman having to carry the child to term.
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
In addition, where did you go when cave canem gave her account of damaging pregnancies? Maybe it's because you are for forcing women through lasting and severe bodily damage against their will?
My mom actually had to have a C-Section to get me out because I managed to get my head stuck in my mom's rib cage. C-Sections aren't as dangerous as they once were, if you have a doctor that knows what they are doing, if they view the actual giving birth to be too dangerous, they can opt for a C-Section and get the child out that way.
Quote:
What you are saying is we should legalize murder because you don't want to deal with a child being in your womb for 9 months. What you are saying is that the child is somehow not human, because you know that Roe v. Wade might get tossed out if the child is recognized as being another human being.
This isn't about forcing anything, this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months, what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence. Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to justify infanticide, such as a simple headache being the justification for a late-term abortion.
This isn't about forcing anything, this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months, what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence. Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to justify infanticide, such as a simple headache being the justification for a late-term abortion.
What about diabetes, fistula, permanent incontinence? Oh wait, those are just inconveniences according to you. How dare we. Avoiding having our pelvic floor and entire core region messed up is just murder for convenience.
Quote:
It's also a stupid question. You are suggesting someone be forced to give up an organ, and comparing that to a child being in the womb for 9 months. Unless you have developed an artificial womb, your example is rather idiotic for the simple fact the child is present in the womb already, and what you are advocating is the murder of a child because you don't want the burden of said child being inside you for 9 months. I don't view women as incubators and I consider rape to be wrong, however it isn't just the woman's rights we need to consider because the child has rights too.
We are left with a situation where there are two bad situations: one where the woman is essentially carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and the other is the murder of the child depriving the child of his/her right to exist.
The lesser of the two evils here is the woman having to carry the child to term.
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
We are left with a situation where there are two bad situations: one where the woman is essentially carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and the other is the murder of the child depriving the child of his/her right to exist.
The lesser of the two evils here is the woman having to carry the child to term.
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
It may be a stupid question but it doesn't excuse you twisting every which way to avoid it. Your reasoning that it is temporary suffering versus someone's life is equally applicable to organ donation. Why is it that in one situation you think it's ok to override someone's bodily integrity but not in another? It's the same principles at work...
Quote:
My mom actually had to have a C-Section to get me out because I managed to get my head stuck in my mom's rib cage. C-Sections aren't as dangerous as they once were, if you have a doctor that knows what they are doing, if they view the actual giving birth to be too dangerous, they can opt for a C-Section and get the child out that way.
C sections are one thing. What about the examples of permanent incontinence, or failure to heal? You think women should be forced to risk being permanently injured?
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
03 Sep 2011, 3:24 pm
LKL wrote:
when I said that RU-486 caused a 'medical' as opposed to a 'surgical' abortion, I was making a distinction about the impact on the mother, not a moral distinction. Medical treatments are usually better for the patient than surgical ones.
wrt. brain function: it makes a difference because most pro-choice people are concerned about the state of the zef *now,* when the abortion takes place, as opposed to in the hypothetical future.
.
On medical versus surgical abortion, of course the distinction is clear, and equally clearly in most cases chemical means are going to be preferable. I have never understood why the profession rejected the time honored Wise Woman's herbs in favor of physical means. Possibly in the early days the added certainty - and quite likely speed before legalization - outweighed the added risks. Though to e fair hormones and other drugs are rarely truly danger free.
Brain function - looking at things straight would help, I cannot but think. Consider a "pro-choice person" who finds herself or a significant other pregnant and gladly "expecting". Such one - if faced with a threat to the Thing That Must Not Be Named - consider Herself faced with appendicitis while pregnant with Number 1 Son - is not going to be that comforted by the thought that the TTMNBN is but a mindless and minuscule blob.
And if the State decided to implement a eugenic program such as is possible today, sampling and testing DNA on all pregnancies and terminating the unsatisfactory ones, some people would not figure it was just fine given the state of development.
03 Sep 2011, 3:41 pm
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
How are blood donations related, your body can generate more blood cells and you have to be over a certain weight to safely give blood.
It has to do with being forced to donate from your body for the good of another organism, person or otherwise. For you it would only be 9 months, and you could potentially save a life with every donation! As for weight, that's only because they want to take a full unit under current rules; with the proposed legislation, they could simply adjust the amount of blood take so that you'd just be miserable for 9 months rather than dead.
What you are saying is we should legalize murder because you don't want to deal with a child being in your womb for 9 months. What you are saying is that the child is somehow not human, because you know that Roe v. Wade might get tossed out if the child is recognized as being another human being.
This isn't about forcing anything, this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months, what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence. Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to justify infanticide, such as a simple headache being the justification for a late-term abortion.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
It's a hypothetical question. If there were no such thing as life support, do you think someone should be forced to do this? Can't you just answer the question on principle rather than split hairs to avoid it?
It's also a stupid question. You are suggesting someone be forced to give up an organ, and comparing that to a child being in the womb for 9 months. Unless you have developed an artificial womb, your example is rather idiotic for the simple fact the child is present in the womb already, and what you are advocating is the murder of a child because you don't want the burden of said child being inside you for 9 months. I don't view women as incubators and I consider rape to be wrong, however it isn't just the woman's rights we need to consider because the child has rights too.
We are left with a situation where there are two bad situations: one where the woman is essentially carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and the other is the murder of the child depriving the child of his/her right to exist.
The lesser of the two evils here is the woman having to carry the child to term.
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
In addition, where did you go when cave canem gave her account of damaging pregnancies? Maybe it's because you are for forcing women through lasting and severe bodily damage against their will?
My mom actually had to have a C-Section to get me out because I managed to get my head stuck in my mom's rib cage. C-Sections aren't as dangerous as they once were, if you have a doctor that knows what they are doing, if they view the actual giving birth to be too dangerous, they can opt for a C-Section and get the child out that way.
Quote:
What you are saying is we should legalize murder because you don't want to deal with a child being in your womb for 9 months. What you are saying is that the child is somehow not human, because you know that Roe v. Wade might get tossed out if the child is recognized as being another human being.
This isn't about forcing anything, this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months, what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence. Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to justify infanticide, such as a simple headache being the justification for a late-term abortion.
This isn't about forcing anything, this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months, what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence. Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to justify infanticide, such as a simple headache being the justification for a late-term abortion.
What about diabetes, fistula, permanent incontinence? Oh wait, those are just inconveniences according to you. How dare we. Avoiding having our pelvic floor and entire core region messed up is just murder for convenience.
Diabetes during pregnency isn't exactly life threatening if it is properly monitored, my Aunt (not the one with the Down Syndrome child) had diabetes during pregnency, she carried the baby to full term, the diabetes went away after she gave birth to a girl.
Thing my aunt has to watch is that she may get diabetes again later in life, however that could happen regardless of whether or not she had ever gotten pregnent.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Quote:
It's also a stupid question. You are suggesting someone be forced to give up an organ, and comparing that to a child being in the womb for 9 months. Unless you have developed an artificial womb, your example is rather idiotic for the simple fact the child is present in the womb already, and what you are advocating is the murder of a child because you don't want the burden of said child being inside you for 9 months. I don't view women as incubators and I consider rape to be wrong, however it isn't just the woman's rights we need to consider because the child has rights too.
We are left with a situation where there are two bad situations: one where the woman is essentially carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and the other is the murder of the child depriving the child of his/her right to exist.
The lesser of the two evils here is the woman having to carry the child to term.
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
We are left with a situation where there are two bad situations: one where the woman is essentially carrying a child she doesn't want for 9 months and the other is the murder of the child depriving the child of his/her right to exist.
The lesser of the two evils here is the woman having to carry the child to term.
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
It may be a stupid question but it doesn't excuse you twisting every which way to avoid it. Your reasoning that it is temporary suffering versus someone's life is equally applicable to organ donation. Why is it that in one situation you think it's ok to override someone's bodily integrity but not in another? It's the same principles at work...
Situation A: Is cut out your organs for another person at the risk of your own life.
Situation B: Child is in mother's womb for 9 months, the organs never actually leave the woman's body and are still present for the woman's use.
False equivalency.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Quote:
My mom actually had to have a C-Section to get me out because I managed to get my head stuck in my mom's rib cage. C-Sections aren't as dangerous as they once were, if you have a doctor that knows what they are doing, if they view the actual giving birth to be too dangerous, they can opt for a C-Section and get the child out that way.
C sections are one thing. What about the examples of permanent incontinence, or failure to heal? You think women should be forced to risk being permanently injured?
Those would be the same risks if the woman had an abortion, so we have the same risks but one results in the near certain death of another human being.
03 Sep 2011, 3:52 pm
How long, O Lord?
Look: it is one thing to oppose abortion of principle, it is another to try to prop that up with arguments that have nothing to do with morality even when you do not muck it up.
It is well known well outside the abortion discussions that the human female, being stuck with the erect bipedal stance which characterizes humanity, is at a sizable disadvantage when pregnant compared to the female mouse [I once assisted at a murine C-section]. That this seriously impacts blood pressure, the transit of the birth canal, and so forth.
We were reliably informed that Herself''s two-life threatening appendectomy was the direct result of her being a gravid human.
For that matter, a quick read through the James Herriot books or more formal veterinary texts will make it clear that yes, gestation does stress the mammalian female. Try it some time. Or watch a mammalian female going through it.
To try to deny that or minimize it just makes you ridiculous. If you actually see cons to abortion - real ones - don't play with this sort of thing.
03 Sep 2011, 3:59 pm
[quote=Inuyasha]Diabetes during pregnency isn't exactly life threatening if it is properly monitored, my Aunt (not the one with the Down Syndrome child) had diabetes during pregnency, she carried the baby to full term, the diabetes went away after she gave birth to a girl.
[/quote]
Lucky her. My sister's did not.
Quote:
Situation A: Is cut out your organs for another person at the risk of your own life.
Situation B: Child is in mother's womb for 9 months, the organs never actually leave the woman's body and are still present for the woman's use.
False equivalency.
Situation B: Child is in mother's womb for 9 months, the organs never actually leave the woman's body and are still present for the woman's use.
False equivalency.
You don't get it. Things don't have to be literally alike to be equivalent.
Both situations involve overriding someone's body rights on the grounds that 'life' trumps their rights.
Both situations are temporary but nonetheless invasive and have permanent effects.
Again...no one else is required to give up body autonomy just because someone needs sustenance. Why should a woman just because she was raped?
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
03 Sep 2011, 4:02 pm
Also...
Quote:
Those would be the same risks if the woman had an abortion, so we have the same risks but one results in the near certain death of another human being.
Really?
Do you have some evidence to back that up?
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
03 Sep 2011, 4:05 pm
Philologos wrote:
How long, O Lord?
Look: it is one thing to oppose abortion of principle, it is another to try to prop that up with arguments that have nothing to do with morality even when you do not muck it up.
It is well known well outside the abortion discussions that the human female, being stuck with the erect bipedal stance which characterizes humanity, is at a sizable disadvantage when pregnant compared to the female mouse [I once assisted at a murine C-section]. That this seriously impacts blood pressure, the transit of the birth canal, and so forth.
We were reliably informed that Herself''s two-life threatening appendectomy was the direct result of her being a gravid human.
For that matter, a quick read through the James Herriot books or more formal veterinary texts will make it clear that yes, gestation does stress the mammalian female. Try it some time. Or watch a mammalian female going through it.
To try to deny that or minimize it just makes you ridiculous. If you actually see cons to abortion - real ones - don't play with this sort of thing.
Look: it is one thing to oppose abortion of principle, it is another to try to prop that up with arguments that have nothing to do with morality even when you do not muck it up.
It is well known well outside the abortion discussions that the human female, being stuck with the erect bipedal stance which characterizes humanity, is at a sizable disadvantage when pregnant compared to the female mouse [I once assisted at a murine C-section]. That this seriously impacts blood pressure, the transit of the birth canal, and so forth.
We were reliably informed that Herself''s two-life threatening appendectomy was the direct result of her being a gravid human.
For that matter, a quick read through the James Herriot books or more formal veterinary texts will make it clear that yes, gestation does stress the mammalian female. Try it some time. Or watch a mammalian female going through it.
To try to deny that or minimize it just makes you ridiculous. If you actually see cons to abortion - real ones - don't play with this sort of thing.
I'm actually not playing at anything, the risk is partially dependent on the doctor performing the proceedure. Furthermore, C-Sections are a lot less dangerous than they used to be. Furthermore, I never said there wasn't any risk. That said, you risk fatal injury everytime you cross a street, there is always a risk when you do anything in life.
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Lucky her. My sister's did not.
Does diabetes run in your family?
03 Sep 2011, 4:52 pm
Quote:
That said, you risk fatal injury everytime you cross a street, there is always a risk when you do anything in life.
I choose to cross the street - this does not make it okay to force me into a life threatening situation.
I choose to do martial arts. This does not make it okay to punch me in the face outside of a martial arts session.
Get the idea?
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
03 Sep 2011, 4:55 pm
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Also...
Really?
Do you have some evidence to back that up?
Early abortions are far of being as risky as birth and although it is common for deranged anti-choice nuts to believe otherwise , facts don't align to their views.
Quote:
Those would be the same risks if the woman had an abortion, so we have the same risks but one results in the near certain death of another human being.
Really?
Do you have some evidence to back that up?
_________________
.
03 Sep 2011, 5:07 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
What you are saying is we should legalize murder
Since abortion is not murder. No,
Quote:
because you don't want to deal with a child being in your womb for 9 months.
You don't want to adopt or donate blood for 9 months either.Quote:
What you are saying is that the child is somehow not human,
It is not a child. It is a fetus. And I can by far assure that before 20-ish weeks it has no way at all of being human. Yet we only want abortion to be legal the few first 9 weeks, because abortion is riskier when it is late anyway.
Quote:
because you know that Roe v. Wade
NOBODY CARES ABOUT ROE V: WADE.
Just stating the truth . Abortion is not murder, practically-headless fetuses are not human. It is the woman's body so she has to decide, and you cannot do anything about it.
Quote:
This isn't about forcing anything,
Err, yes. Banning the right for women to decide to abort is the same as forcing births.Quote:
this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months,
It is not a child. It is a zygote, embryo or fetus depending of the stage.
Quote:
what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence.
It isn't murder. Yes, it is for convenience and for health risks. The government cannot force us to do stuff that we find inconvenient.Quote:
Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
You can go "la la la la not listening" to the idea that birth can be as threatening as an organ donation. It won't mod the reality.
Quote:
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to
justify infanticide
justify infanticide
* It is not infanticide as there is no infant. By now you would have noticed that using emotionally-charged , inaccurate terms is not really impressing us at all.
* Health risks exist and you are avoiding to address them. Would appear you gave up and are back to trying to use emotionally-charged speech like MURDERZ or CHILDD or INFTIZED. Is that because you really couldn't find a Fox News link debunking that there are health risks and potent for serious permanent side effects in pregnancy (Perhaps because that is actually common sense).
Quote:
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
It is not a child.
The woman has rights.
Quote:
C-Sections aren't as dangerous as they once were,
Still dangerous. And it is still not your body to make the decision about whether anyone should risk it or not.
So, you may consider that pregnancies are easy and comfortable and that you will dream of ponies and not puke any time in those 9 months and that 9 months end in a sneeze. And you are free to believe that.
However, the one that has to make the evaluation of potential risks and discomfort is not you. It is the one that is pregnant.
The day you get pregnant, you will be able to make the choice to go with it and expect pregnancy to be a very happy thing without any health annoyances. And with some luck you will not get post-birth psicosis and your baby will be healthy and years later he will bash other people in forums. But that decision will only apply to your own pregnancy. Not anyone else's. Just like whether I donate organs or not is my decision and not anyone else's.
_________________
.
03 Sep 2011, 5:35 pm
Vexcalibur wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
What you are saying is we should legalize murder
Since abortion is not murder. No,
We're talking the deliberate killing of another human being, that sounds like murder to me.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
because you don't want to deal with a child being in your womb for 9 months.
You don't want to adopt or donate blood for 9 months either.Quote:
What you are saying is that the child is somehow not human,
It is not a child. It is a fetus. And I can by far assure that before 20-ish weeks it has no way at all of being human. Yet we only want abortion to be legal the few first 9 weeks, because abortion is riskier when it is late anyway.
And I have stated that as soon as we see brain activity at all, we are dealing with another human life, brain activity is detectible 48 days after conception, that's well before your 9 weeks.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
because you know that Roe v. Wade
NOBODY CARES ABOUT ROE V: WADE.
Just stating the truth . Abortion is not murder, practically-headless fetuses are not human. It is the woman's body so she has to decide, and you cannot do anything about it.
I have just as much say as a woman thank you kindly, in fact everyone here that is a male does, cause we were once inside the womb ourselves, and wouldn't you have wanted someone fighting for your right to live? Or are you one of those people that wishes they had never been born?
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
This isn't about forcing anything,
Err, yes. Banning the right for women to decide to abort is the same as forcing births.Actually, it is called honoring the rights of the child. How about you go invent an artifical womb so we don't have this moral dilemma.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
this is about the fact the child is stuck inside the womb for X number of months,
It is not a child. It is a zygote, embryo or fetus depending of the stage.
The stage of development doesn't affect the fact that the child is still a human child.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
what you are proposing is essentially murder for conveinence.
It isn't murder. Yes, it is for convenience and for health risks. The government cannot force us to do stuff that we find inconvenient.Considering the fact the child is human, yeah it is something that government can make illegal. If the child is recognized as being human, then sorry but abortion could very easily be illegal the overwhelming majority of the time.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
Forcing people to donate organs (having organs physically removed from them) is a life threatening situation.
You can go "la la la la not listening" to the idea that birth can be as threatening as an organ donation. It won't mod the reality.
I'm not attempting to mod reality, I'm just not going to go along with your distorted view of reality.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
When you say there are health risks with pregnency, yeah I think we've seen the health risks used to
justify infanticide
justify infanticide
* It is not infanticide as there is no infant. By now you would have noticed that using emotionally-charged , inaccurate terms is not really impressing us at all.
* Health risks exist and you are avoiding to address them. Would appear you gave up and are back to trying to use emotionally-charged speech like MURDERZ or CHILDD or INFTIZED. Is that because you really couldn't find a Fox News link debunking that there are health risks and potent for serious permanent side effects in pregnancy (Perhaps because that is actually common sense).
I've defined where I consider life to begin as being when brain activity is first detectable, so from my standpoint yeah it would be infanticide. I'm calling a spade a spade, don't like that fact tough.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
A fact feminists fail to consider and the fact pro-abortion people don't want the public to consider is that the child has rights too.
It is not a child.
The woman has rights.
The child has DNA from the mother and father combined into a combination that is new and unique. The child isn't over the age of 18 years old either. The fact the child is still inside the womb doesn't negate the fact the child is in fact a child.
You all scream about how we shouldn't execute murderers, isn't it kinda a ridiculous stance on your part because the child hasn't committed any crimes yet in your view it is okay to kill the child.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
C-Sections aren't as dangerous as they once were,
Still dangerous. And it is still not your body to make the decision about whether anyone should risk it or not.So, you may consider that pregnancies are easy and comfortable and that you will dream of ponies and not puke any time in those 9 months and that 9 months end in a sneeze. And you are free to believe that.
However, the one that has to make the evaluation of potential risks and discomfort is not you. It is the one that is pregnant.
The day you get pregnant, you will be able to make the choice to go with it and expect pregnancy to be a very happy thing without any health annoyances. But that decision will only apply to your own pregnancy. Not anyone else's.
That still doesn't make it okay to kill a child simply due to some discomfort.
03 Sep 2011, 6:08 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Quote:
Does diabetes run in your family?
Nope.
Nobody else along our family line has or had diabetes.
That you know of.
Nope. Asked my mom since I was scared of getting it myself. Nobody else in the family has been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus.
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
03 Sep 2011, 7:09 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
The child has DNA from the mother and father combined into a combination that is new and unique.
Yeah, but who cares?
It is just DNA. It does not have magical properties embedded into it that define a soul per-se. It is just genetic code mixed up.
Quote:
The child isn't over the age of 18 years old either. The fact the child is still inside the womb doesn't negate the fact the child is in fact a child.
What negates it being a child is, for starters that its brain is not even connected to senses. Or that it is a closed system.
It is not a child. Ask any medical book. Stop using lame inaccurate terms just to load the discussion emotionally.
Quote:
You all scream about how we shouldn't execute murderers, isn't it kinda a ridiculous stance on your part
Non-sequitour. Besides, you are assuming that 'we all' are against capital punishment. There is no syndicate of evil enemies of Inuyasha that acts in block.
I wouldn't mind murderers getting executed. But I don't trust government enough to give it the right to kill. The legal system has been wrong plenty of times.
Quote:
because the child hasn't committed any crimes yet in your view it is
It hasn't committed any crimes, it has not done anything either. It is a blob of cells. Yeah, I know that it is so terrible that you can't force other people to decide the way you like, but it is not really a person. At least until week 26-th it is impossible for it to be a person. And we are fine if only early (like 10 weeks) abortion is made legal. So.
Quote:
okay to kill the child.
It is not a child. It is a fetus.
Quote:
That still doesn't make it okay to kill a child simply due to some discomfort.
"Ok" vs. "Wrong" is a flawed spectrum of decisions in here.
IT is not to kill a child, because it isn't a child what is getting killed.
I think that the option that causes more innocent suffering overall is forcing pregnancies. You, Inuyasha seem to be happy with these fetuses being forced to develop into babies and become a social problem for us all. Yet then you escape the responsibility to adopt them and would be horribly against any sort of welfare that uses your taxes to help them.
_________________
.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| MAGA supporter calls ICE on pregnant woman |
04 Jul 2026, 11:31 pm |
| My four cabaret girl paintings |
04 Jul 2026, 10:53 pm |
