Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Let's just turn the title around, "Abortion no different than killing babies."
See what I did there. Look at any society today on the face of the earth that practices infanticide and then ask yourself,
"Is this what I want our society to resemble?" Count me out.

Aaaannnndddd......

Hillary gets a new plank for her presidential bid in 2016.
Progressives rejoice.

We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

That is the problem.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Their conclusion is certainly valid for late-term abortions. Nothing significant changes during birth.

reply to post by xuenchen


For many abortions the baby could live outside of the womb if an emergency birth were an option.. that's a fact. So what's the difference between a 6 month old baby and a baby that could survive outside the womb but gets aborted?


Nothing.

When my son was born and I held him in my arms, what an experience.

He could do nothing on his own, completely helpless and dependent on his father and me. I did a lot of maturing when I first held my son.

Looking into his face, his eyes scrunched shut and his loud cries echoing, I knew what real love meant. When the nurse tried to take him to clean him up, I didn't want to let go.

The next day, when he opened his eyes, my heart melted. When I held him close and he snuggled under my chin, my joy and happiness was complete.


Exercise in logic, exercise to prompt thinking, whatever you want to call it....it's distasteful.

OP, sorry for going off topic.

No i think once a baby is born it does have a "right to life" and its parents (Both of them no matter what) have a responsibility to take care of that life up until adulthood. Killing a baby after it is born is murder.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
No i think once a baby is born it does have a "right to life" and its parents (Both of them no matter what) have a responsibility to take care of that life up until adulthood. Killing a baby after it is born is murder.

What the difference between a 9 month old babies in uterus and, a 9 month old baby outside?

Why does one have more rights?

If you say, the one inside needs the mother in order to live, won't that mean the born outside also needs help to stay alive? i mean you don't see babies supporting themselves after being born.

I think the line should be drawn further earlier then the actually birth process, which i think its stupid.

Although I don't think I could ever be a willing participant in a decision to abort, I DO want it to remain legal. However....
There needs to be a limit on how far along you can have one and after birth is definitely not an option. In fact, I would put the limit within the first trimester, after that, no abortion allowed unless there is a threat to the life of the mother and the growing fetus will absolutely, positively be handicapped beyond the ability to function normally. BOTH conditions must be met, not just one of them.
I support the "morning after pill" being legal.

Upon conception, the fetus is not capable of growing/living outside the womb, it's not, in my opinion, a "human"....yet. Sure, it will grow into one, but one could argue that every single sperm and every single egg has the same potential. Women allow eggs to go unfertilized every month and men spread the sperm everywhere. Until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb and the development has taken place that will enable it to grow into a healthy, happy baby, then I feel it should be legal to abort, but there needs to be a lot of counseling and guided decision making before it's allowed. It's not something you just run and have done then go back to what you were doing, it's a big, BIG decision. The best interest of the developing fetus needs to be taken into account.

I would not be opposed to having mandatory sterilization after the second abortion to prevent the event from happening again. In fact, if it came down to it, I'd go with mandatory steriliztion in a lot of cases ranging from rape, extreme drug use, child neglect and various other things that show the given person should not be allowed to rear children for the good of the children, but... I digress.

It's not a decision that I would choose to have undertaken if I had involvement in it, but I do want it to remain legal, with certain conditions to prevent the back alley, wire hanger activities as well as to preserve the life of the mother.

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
No i think once a baby is born it does have a "right to life" and its parents (Both of them no matter what) have a responsibility to take care of that life up until adulthood. Killing a baby after it is born is murder.

What the difference between a 9 month old babies in uterus and, a 9 month old baby outside?

Why does one have more rights?

If you say, the one inside needs the mother in order to live, won't that mean the born outside also needs help to stay alive? i mean you don't see babies supporting themselves after being born.

I think the line should be drawn further earlier then the actually birth process, which i think its stupid.

I knew someone would try and turn this into a anti-abortion thread.

Its not an abortion thread so your question wont be being answered by myself as i will be staying on topic and suggest you do the same.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


What do you mean anti-abortion, what did you think the latent meaning behind the title?

Off-topic, that is on topic, you said once the baby is out, its murder..

I asked whats the difference between, a 9 month old inside uterus and the same 9 month old outside after birth(which is pretty much the title is referring to).

How does 1 gets more right over the other?

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

What do you mean anti-abortion, what did you think the latent meaning behind the title?

Off-topic, that is on topic, you said once the baby is out, its murder..

I asked whats the difference between, a 9 month old inside uterus and the same 9 month old outside after birth(which is pretty much the title is referring to).

How does 1 gets more right over the other?

You asked the difference because your blatantly trying to turn it into a pro-life/pro-choice argument despite the title specificity referring to babies that have come to term, meaning out of the uterus, meaning owners of a shiny new birth certificate and recognised & protected by human law.

We are not talking about unborn here, hence this is not an abortion thread and wont help you turn it into one.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

What do you mean anti-abortion, what did you think the latent meaning behind the title?

Off-topic, that is on topic, you said once the baby is out, its murder..

I asked whats the difference between, a 9 month old inside uterus and the same 9 month old outside after birth(which is pretty much the title is referring to).

How does 1 gets more right over the other?

I believe the big difference would be that nobody would ever abort a baby at 9 months. I would like to believe no person would do that and I know absolutely that no doctor would do that.
I don't know the summary of all of the state/country laws, but the most often used standard is to not permit an abortion past the first trimester. There are some stipulations involving the threat to the life of the mother, but that's the standard that is cited most often.

Although I personally would never consent to an abortion, I do want it to remain legal as I don't force my beliefs on other people and I don't consider it a "life" until birth. I would hope that if there is a possibility that it can live outside the womb that an abortion wouldn't be allowed or they would at least deliver via a C-section and allow the resulting baby to be adopted.

This belief is congruent with the Christian faith. Just as God breathed life into Adam upon creation, when the baby is born, it takes it's first breath and it is philosophized that the soul enters the body with that breath just as it did with Adam. Therefore, people who proclaim to be Christian should support that belief.

Granted, there is the potential for a human life and I wouldn't want to end that potential other than in extreme circumstances, but what others choose to do is not in my power to dictate. Once the child is born, we do have a say, as society, and we come together to protect the lives of innocent children.

The prevention of a birth is very different from the ending of a life after birth has occured. Many try to say otherwise, but that is the legal and moral standing of our society at this time. It is my goal to ensure that the standard remains where it is, as is the goal of many others.

The biggest difference between abortion and killing babies is that abortion is legal. If somebody has a beef with that, they need to work to change the law. Maybe it will change back. Very probably not.

I feel that we should test the elasticity of the "self defense" law when it comes to people like this.

After all.. he might be aborting the baby that could very well be curing my cancer some day.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
I feel that we should test the elasticity of the "self defense" law when it comes to people like this.

After all.. he might be aborting the baby that could very well be curing my cancer some day.

edit on 26-10-2012 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

Oh sorry God, didnt see you there, you finally returned to tell people how they should be living their lives?

/end sarcasm

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Comical

Actually quite the opposite.... The ease at which we could be or should be taking them.. Not living them..

reply to post by 11235813213455


Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

They should just give the baby up for adoption instead of aborting it. Like that's a human life, that could do so many things if given a chance. The mother could just move on and give it to another mother if she doesn't want to keep it. But let it live, let it have a life. Instead big pharam wants the abortion to actually use the baby's remains in cosmetics, stem cell research, other research, and other products. Can you imagine? (what do you think they do with the remains give it a funeral? It's dissected and sold off to big pharam) That's sick!

Watch...




you want this.....


or this....

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

Quite the contrary..

I'm more concerned about what >harm< people do in their lifetime. Why abort the innocent before they have proven who they are? We should be aborting those that would be causing us harm. Does a baby do harm?

Now the complicated part is ... What is the definition of harm? Is what I would consider harm be what you consider harm?