Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Not the same. Silly prol-life arguement.

Pro lifers like to use this tactic but it is comparing apples to oranges.

Anyone can take responsiblity for a developed child. a developed child is dependant on many people, and any person can take care of that child.

A fetus does not have any autonomy whatsoever, and must hijack a woman's body for 9.5 months in order to gain it, and no one else but that woman can take care of that fetus. By definition, it is a parasite. It id ependant on only one person. Their only existence is defined by living in that one person.

So by your definition, if that fetus has rights, you are removing the rights of one person and forcing them to take care of another.

So if a developed child is the same as an embryo, then the government will also be able to take children, and place them in the care of who they want to force to take care of them.

Because by your definition, that embryo has a right to another human being.

As much as you would like it to, it doesn't talk, doesn't walk, doesn't think, doesn't feel, doesn't love or hate, or contain any qualities that make it human.

In order to have a right to life, you must have a life first.

Now since these gangs like to engage in war and kill each other off for stupid things like honor and territory, how much work have you done to protect the young children that are roped into gangs, because the don't have any other choice to survive?

reply to post by nixie_nox


And pro-choice people like to pretend that every aborted child was going to be in a gang and have a horrible life.

So, what do you expect when you start with an illogical argument talking about saving a child from a life of horrors by killing it before it has a chance.

When you start with illogical arguments, you are going to get illogical responses.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Not the same. Silly prol-life arguement.

Pro lifers like to use this tactic but it is comparing apples to oranges.

Anyone can take responsiblity for a developed child. a developed child is dependant on many people, and any person can take care of that child.

A fetus does not have any autonomy whatsoever, and must hijack a woman's body for 9.5 months in order to gain it, and no one else but that woman can take care of that fetus. By definition, it is a parasite. It id ependant on only one person. Their only existence is defined by living in that one person.

So by your definition, if that fetus has rights, you are removing the rights of one person and forcing them to take care of another.

So if a developed child is the same as an embryo, then the government will also be able to take children, and place them in the care of who they want to force to take care of them.

Because by your definition, that embryo has a right to another human being.

As much as you would like it to, it doesn't talk, doesn't walk, doesn't think, doesn't feel, doesn't love or hate, or contain any qualities that make it human.

In order to have a right to life, you must have a life first.

Now since these gangs like to engage in war and kill each other off for stupid things like honor and territory, how much work have you done to protect the young children that are roped into gangs, because the don't have any other choice to survive?

edit on 24-8-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Its not a silly pro life arguement. In fact I don't think I said a single anti-abortion statement in this thread.

What I have said is, if the fetus represents a human being, then they deserve every right any other human being has and economics or difficulty or "just because" are not acceptable excuses to kill another human being.

If the fetus is not a human being, all of those excuses are moot.

The problem is that we see a lot of insocnistent justifications. If it is okay to kill a kid one month before he is born, then why not 1 month after? If economics justify the killing, why not kill the homeless? If you can justify killing in one instance, you can justify it in the other.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Let me ask the pro lifers this:


Are you so adamant about your cause, that would you be willing to pay for prenatal care for every pregnant woman, and for the medical,food, and education for every child that is brought into this country?

1. We kind of do that already.
2. I've never seen fiscal issues seen as a justification for killing someone. If the fetus is a human life, it should not matter if it is a financial hardship because we do not accept finances as a reason to kill a person.
3. The underlying issue is not how hard it is or difficult it is. THe underlying issue is, do we or do we not have a human being? If not, then there is no more moral problem than getting any other elective surgery. If it does, then all of the excuses of convenience are not consistent with how and when human life should be taken.

When I am shelling out 200 bucks a week for part time daycare, I don't recall you ever helping me with that. When my son needs dental care, are you going to help me with that? I have to find a way to pay for school clothes, do you mind giving me some money?

Kids need more than just formula and diapers. And it doesn't stop, even at 18.

And regarding #2, that is the main reason that women do not keep pregnancies,they do not have the means to seek care, or raise that child. Since you are so adamant that every child has a right to life, in order to make sure that they reach birth healthily, they need prenatal care. A woman needs doctor visits, in the case of diabetes or preclampsia, she needs to be hospitalized. Then you need to replace whatever income that she is losing while being in the hospital.

So since you are forcing a woman to have this child, are you going to pay her rent and utilities that she is losing while in the hospital? Are you going to buy the cradle, car seat, diapers, crib, clothes and bedding that she will now need.

If she has other children, and she dies as a result of the pregnancy, are you going to pay to raise those children for the rest of their lives, since she can no longer provide for them?

Now if that child has disabilities, are you going to pay for retrofitting the house, for the lost income of taking care of a disabled child? Their extensive medical care that might not be covered by insurance if she had any?

See, it is not a matter of conveinence, it is a matter of life. Not only for that woman, but for all who depend on her.

It is not a matter of conveinance for a fetus to get pre natal care, it is a matter of health. It is not a matter of conveinance to have the things it needs to live. It is not a matter of conveinance for it to have a home and for the mother to have an income.

And it doesn't have a life afterall without any of those.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


*laughs* no one elects to have an abortion simply because. It is usually because they are not able to take care of it.

On the flipside, every baby that is born isn't destined to be a doctor. Your arguement is illogical.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I have never heard of an abortion being conducted one month before they are born. Only in China.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Let me ask the pro lifers this:


Are you so adamant about your cause, that would you be willing to pay for prenatal care for every pregnant woman, and for the medical,food, and education for every child that is brought into this country?

1. We kind of do that already.
2. I've never seen fiscal issues seen as a justification for killing someone. If the fetus is a human life, it should not matter if it is a financial hardship because we do not accept finances as a reason to kill a person.
3. The underlying issue is not how hard it is or difficult it is. THe underlying issue is, do we or do we not have a human being? If not, then there is no more moral problem than getting any other elective surgery. If it does, then all of the excuses of convenience are not consistent with how and when human life should be taken.

When I am shelling out 200 bucks a week for part time daycare, I don't recall you ever helping me with that. When my son needs dental care, are you going to help me with that? I have to find a way to pay for school clothes, do you mind giving me some money?

Kids need more than just formula and diapers. And it doesn't stop, even at 18.

And regarding #2, that is the main reason that women do not keep pregnancies,they do not have the means to seek care, or raise that child. Since you are so adamant that every child has a right to life, in order to make sure that they reach birth healthily, they need prenatal care. A woman needs doctor visits, in the case of diabetes or preclampsia, she needs to be hospitalized. Then you need to replace whatever income that she is losing while being in the hospital.

So since you are forcing a woman to have this child, are you going to pay her rent and utilities that she is losing while in the hospital? Are you going to buy the cradle, car seat, diapers, crib, clothes and bedding that she will now need.

If she has other children, and she dies as a result of the pregnancy, are you going to pay to raise those children for the rest of their lives, since she can no longer provide for them?

Now if that child has disabilities, are you going to pay for retrofitting the house, for the lost income of taking care of a disabled child? Their extensive medical care that might not be covered by insurance if she had any?

See, it is not a matter of conveinence, it is a matter of life. Not only for that woman, but for all who depend on her.

It is not a matter of conveinance for a fetus to get pre natal care, it is a matter of health. It is not a matter of conveinance to have the things it needs to live. It is not a matter of conveinance for it to have a home and for the mother to have an income.

And it doesn't have a life afterall without any of those.

As long as you support uthenasia in all of those cases, then you are consistent. If you do not support euthenasia in the hadicapped, the mentally ill, or simply impoverished, then you are not inconsistent.

I haven't said a thing about "forcing" anyone to do anything...just pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguement.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

*laughs* no one elects to have an abortion simply because. It is usually because they are not able to take care of it.

On the flipside, every baby that is born isn't destined to be a doctor. Your arguement is illogical.

Please explain what is illogical about my argument. I never claimed every baby born is destined for anything...that was you who claimed some psychic power to know their life is going to be horrible.

I'm sorry that I called you on your illogical psychic powers...but don't try to turn it around on me.

You are the one trying to equate a human to a fish...not me.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It costs $235,000 to raise a child with just basic necessities. I would like him to go to college, so that is another $60,000. So I would like to have another but don't have the financial means to do so.But since finances aren't an issue, then you can give me $235,000.

But if that is too much, I will be willing to do a payment plan with you.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You can't come up with a suitable counterpoint, so you come up with euthanasia.

seriously?

If everyone has the right to life, then people need money to live. Are you willing to pay for it?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

It costs $235,000 to raise a child with just basic necessities. I would like him to go to college, so that is another $60,000. So I would like to have another but don't have the financial means to do so.But since finances aren't an issue, then you can give me $235,000.

But if that is too much, I will be willing to do a payment plan with you.

I didn't tell you to have sex.

How about taking a little responsibility for your own actions.

And btw...killing a baby isn't considered taking responsibility.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I have never heard of an abortion being conducted one month before they are born. Only in China.

Infants are killed either overtly or through negligence all of the time. Just google "dumpster" and "baby." What makes one murder or child abuse and the other not? The justifications may all be the same, but we treat them both differently. Why?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You can't come up with a suitable counterpoint, so you come up with euthanasia.

You want him to come up with a suitable counterpoint to your magical psychic powers of knowing that aborted babies are going to be gang members???



You are being very very silly.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Only in China? is that how people sleep at night? lol

In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. [2]

According to WHO, every year in the world an estimated 40-50 million women faced with an unplanned pregnancy decide to have an abortion. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day. .

Source

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

*laughs* no one elects to have an abortion simply because. It is usually because they are not able to take care of it.

On the flipside, every baby that is born isn't destined to be a doctor. Your arguement is illogical.

Please explain what is illogical about my argument. I never claimed every baby born is destined for anything...that was you who claimed some psychic power to know their life is going to be horrible.

I'm sorry that I called you on your illogical psychic powers...but don't try to turn it around on me.

You are the one trying to equate a human to a fish...not me.

edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

I am so sorry that science eludes you. That zygotes and embryos look like most species of zygotes and embryos until dna starts the differentiation between species.

So if all zygotes and embryos are the same, then they all have a right to life, not just the human ones.

I am also sorry you don't understand the social implications of a woman in a position who can't carry out a pregnancy. Because people who have the means to keep and raise a child, usually do.

Unless it is a case of an abusive spouse, and they don't want to be kept tied and on the radar of an abusive spouse through a child.

And women do keep babies in this situation, and they are usually running from county to county, collecting welfare benefits, to survive, and not get killed by an enraged male who is the father.

And this happens more often then you think. I worked in social services, though our informaiton is confidential, they are so fearful of this man finding them that they won't even tell social services who the father is. We have to put them on a witness protection program of sorts.

What a great life for a kid!

The demographics don't lie. Minorities get abortions at twice the rate or more than white women, and most are low income.

Those minorities that are born, have a much lower chance at an education or success.

This is common sense, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

reply to post by nixie_nox

I am so sorry that science eludes you. That zygotes and embryos look like most species of zygotes and embryos until dna starts the differentiation between species.

Science doesn't elude me...science is a little more than eyeballing something and classifying it by that alone.

Why are you ignoring that a human zygote is human...it has human DNA...it will always form into a human...not a fish.

A zygote isn't a blank slate...it is the first stage of the life cycle. In the case of humans...it is a HUMAN zygote...not a fish.

So if all zygotes and embryos are the same, then they all have a right to life, not just the human ones.

They aren't all the same. They may "look" the same to you...but they aren't the same.

What a ridiculous and ignorant argument. Do you deny science often..or only when it helps you justifiy killing babies???

What a great life for a kid!

And death is such a great alternative.

How is your life Nixie...is it perfect???

Those minorities that are born, have a much lower chance at an education or success.

This is common sense, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

And so your solution is to kill the baby.

So genocide...for the good of society...how nice.



You are intentionally ignoring science...claiming all zygotes are the same....shame on you.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

It costs $235,000 to raise a child with just basic necessities. I would like him to go to college, so that is another $60,000. So I would like to have another but don't have the financial means to do so.But since finances aren't an issue, then you can give me $235,000.

But if that is too much, I will be willing to do a payment plan with you.

I didn't tell you to have sex.

How about taking a little responsibility for your own actions.

And btw...killing a baby isn't considered taking responsibility.

You claim that financial reasons are not the reason to have an abortion. I am telling you it is. And a lot of women do not have choice about sex. It is called spousal rape.

You want to remove family planning decisions from women and cite that finances isn't a valid reason for it. Since you want to force women to have babies they can't raise, I am showing you that it isn't that easy.

Oh by the way, because of my commute, I will need you to drop it off at daycare and pick it up. He has a doctor appointment that he needs to go to next week, and I don't get paid leave, so I will need you to take him to that too.


But people are humans and have accidents. Funny how you never mention the male responsiblity in this. But the decision is still up to the woman because a man doesn't have the fetus living in him, and they take off, and don't think they do.
Which is why when women make these decisions, they have to make them being able to raise a child by herself.

I have a cousin that had a baby at 12 by a 26 year old. Completey consensual. The moment she was pregnant, he was gone. No one can find him.

What kind of life does a 12 year old give a baby, when she is just a baby herself?

But oh, financial considerations aren't a part of it, right?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You can't come up with a suitable counterpoint, so you come up with euthanasia.

seriously?

If everyone has the right to life, then people need money to live. Are you willing to pay for it?

It is a suitible counterpoint. If expense is all of the justification someone needs to kill another person, then why in one case but not the other?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I have never heard of an abortion being conducted one month before they are born. Only in China.

Infants are killed either overtly or through negligence all of the time. Just google "dumpster" and "baby." What makes one murder or child abuse and the other not? The justifications may all be the same, but we treat them both differently. Why?

Which is why if pro life advocates want everyone to keep pregnancies they can't take care of, they need to provide a means for that woman to receive prenatal care.

if it is a teen that has been kicked out of a house, she needs a place to go and money for things she needs.

As I explained to you before, a fetus is completely dependant on living off of only human, and only that human for survival, a baby that is born is now independant, and others can take care of it, and shortly will contribute to society, It also acts human. That is why then she can be held for murder. And if anyone else kills that child, they will be held for murder.

But you also have to consider the state of the mother, someone who carries a pregnancy to only put the baby in a dumpster is on drugs, has mental issues or some kind of psychosis, or is a very scared teen.

reply to post by nixie_nox

You claim that financial reasons are not the reason to have an abortion. I am telling you it is.

That is your opinion...I don't think financial reasons justify murder...but you are free to believe so.

Some men believe that marriage entitles them to sex, your spousal rape example, doesn't mean it is right, but it is what they beleive.

You want to remove family planning decisions from women and cite that finances isn't a valid reason for it. Since you want to force women to have babies they can't raise, I am showing you that it isn't that easy.

And women just can't resist their sexual urges...they MUST have sex huh???

I want to force people to take responsibility for their actions without murdering a child to wipe away their irresponsible behavior.

I'm married...me and my wife have sex all the time...for some odd reason, we only get pregnant when we intend to. It's really not that hard...unless you are saying women are complete sex crazed addicts and morons to boot.

But oh, financial considerations aren't a part of it, right?

People murder each other over financial considerations all the time. A husband murders a wife that wants a divorce because of the money she will take from him. A wife murders a husband to collect his life insurance. A man murders another man because he owes him money.

Money is not a justification for murder.

It's sad that you value money over life.