And a good solution is to murder a baby???????All too often these girls get abortions because they have no financial or emotional support.
And all too often they end up needing counseling...
And a good solution is to murder a baby???????All too often these girls get abortions because they have no financial or emotional support.
And all too often they end up needing counseling...
Yes I did, no where did I say it was alright to cause born infants harm. A previous poster used the phrase "slaughtering infants", which was not accurate. What they meant to say was aborting fetuses, because that is what an abortion is.You said that an infant was anywhere between one month and one year old.
I believe the common timeline is up until 12 weeks in most states. I may be mistaken, but I think it is 12 weeks.are nine month old "fetuses" fair game??
you really need to be more specific, was I not clear the first time???
please point to the chart where it is ok to murder human beings or where it is not ok
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right — which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
-Ayn Rand
I Am Pro Abortion: 10 Reasons Why We Must Support the Procedure and the Choice
And a good solution is to murder a baby???????
Perhaps if they are trying to render it in Thembu. :idunno:I'm sure someone is going to misinterpret your post.
You get nothing right. Ever.Thanks but I think I got it right the first time.
What?Perhaps you are happy then that most zygotes fail naturally while representing actual human beings?
And your assertion of a magical, arbitrary line where personhood emerges is useless, vague and dangerous, because your endgame is to see killed those people who do not qualify according to your invented and malleable standard.But I don't accept that any human person can exist until a basic "person" can function somehow.
Which makes you an ignoramus and a heartless fool. Speak to the mother who loses multiple children at the early stages about her pain — tell her she should not feel loss because her children were not people yet.Therefore all of those naturally failing zygotes do not represent human beings or a human tragedy for me at least.
There are no natural processes going on inside your head. It's all vile.There is only a natural process going on which if successful will result in a human person in time.
Alwrong: Murderers should be let go because they do not think they are murderers.Don't try to compel others to do what you say since they may not agree with you, any more than I do.
You're a liar and a fool. You do not care about people. And there is never a choice to be made between killing a baby to save a person.For me potential humans are merely that, potential. It's the lives of actual human persons that are of far more interest to me.
You condemn Alright for being vile in his own head, and yet, this is nothing short of a personal attack that with little to no contribution to the discussion.Perhaps if they are trying to render it in Thembu. :idunno:
You get nothing right. Ever.
What?
People are people no matter how small. You cannot fail at being a person because of your size. To say otherwise is to engage in the same form of thinking as the racist.
And your assertion of a magical, arbitrary line where personhood emerges is useless, vague and dangerous, because your endgame is to see killed those people who do not qualify according to your invented and malleable standard.
Abortion defenders engage in the exact same rationale that Hitler did.
Which makes you an ignoramus and a heartless fool. Speak to the mother who loses multiple children at the early stages about her pain — tell her she should not feel loss because her children were not people yet.
There are no natural processes going on inside your head. It's all vile.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You should be chewed up and spat out for the unthinking retard that you are.
Alwrong: Murderers should be let go because they do not think they are murderers.
You're a liar and a fool. You do not care about people. And there is never a choice to be made between killing a baby to save a person.
You condemn Alright for being vile in his own head, and yet, this is nothing short of a personal attack that with little to no contribution to the discussion.
You think then that a human being is magically created at conception somehow?
Maybe you don't know that most conceptions are in fact doomed to fail within a few hours, quite naturally?
Personally I don't accept that most human beings that have ever existed failed to get to first base.
A zygote after conception represents a potential human being.
A potential human being may exist at conception and as a zygote, but a sperm and egg arguably also represents a potential human being, and most people seem to have little or no problem with methods of preventing conception.
So at what point does the value of a potential human being become great enough to consider it a human being?
A very tricky question.
I'd say at least not until some sort of functioning nervous system has developed.
Because the general issues are so tricky, complex and unclear then abortion simply must involve an individual woman's right to choose and decide for herself what will happen, based on all of the specific individual circumstances.
Those who don't like the abortion choices made by other people can always impose their beliefs on themselves, by all means, if they themselves are ever in that position, but they don't have any rights over what others may choose, or to deny anyone the right to choose.
I agree, if a woman wants to keep her baby but is for whatever reason (finances, peer pressure, etc) unable to do so, programs like you describe would be a wonderful asset. In fact, in my state, these programs are already in place. However, by the same token, if a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).The problem seems to be that pro-choice people think that a woman in a crisis pregnancy WANTS to have an abortion.
That is rarely the case.
All top often women who have abortions are desperate. Their friends and family have made it very clear that they have no intention of supporting any other decision. Often they have nowhere to go, no one to turn to. They feel alone and frightened.
What you are supporting is not empowerment for women. If you truly wanted to empower women you would lobby for federal funds to help women keep their baby. You would reach out to these women in love and compassion. That is what they need...not another idiot protecting their so-called "rights"...
However, by the same token, if a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).
If a woman decides that she does not want to keep it, that is her call, not mine (or yours).
(Sorry, misread your post.) I agree, adoption is a valid route, as well.No woman has to *keep* her baby. There is this little thing called adoption.
The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less, as such, my statement is just fine. However, in the future I will use "him/her" to be more accurate.Calling a baby "it" to justify your rejection of him as a person and ultimately his murder is akin to all the worst things people have labelled each other throughout history to facilitate the worst atrocities.
A baby is the tiniest of human beings; deserving of the strongest levels of protection from cowards like you.
That isn't up to you.
The hypothetical baby in question is gender-less, as such, my statement is just fine. However, in the future I will use "him/her" to be more accurate.
Fair point, because many advocates don't identify a fetus as a person until the fetus has developed.Pro-abortion advocates refer to the unborn baby as "it" for one purpose ... dehumanization.
Fair point, because many advocates don't identify a fetus as a person until he/she has developed into one.
Correct.That is the *claim* that pro-abortion advocates make ...
Make up your mind....you first argue against then argue in favor of the notion of human potentiality.
Second, no one can rationally argue that a fetus is not biologically human....though simply bestowing a persona upon the unborn is mere subjective, personal choice in action.
Prior to demanding such, one must first ascertain whether "being human" is a sufficient condition for personhood
It matters not. God has the right to finish the process He started, and nobody has the right to interfere.