No, the specific womb does.
"No one is pro-abortion"
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
No, the specific womb does.
glassjester
Well-known member
You do realize that if someone kills the unborn child without the mother's permission, they are charged with murder, right?
Sure. This is regarding abortion not assault.
glassjester
Well-known member
So murder depends on the identity of the killer?
No again, murder (the act of) is defined by the "identity".
glassjester
Well-known member
And if a person was charged with murder of an unborn child - who exactly is the victim of the murder?
glassjester
Well-known member
Before fishing it's a good idea to buy some bait.
Nice non-answer. What's wrong with fishing, anyway?
Per the conservative norm.....such self-served comments harbor no concern for the "fish's" perspective.
glassjester
Well-known member
You don't like having others point out inconsistencies in your own logic. I get it.
Tell me again why, if a doctor pulls an unborn child out of a mother's womb and kills it - that's ok with you - but if the same doctor got into a car accident with the same woman on his way to the abortion clinic, and the baby died - he'd be guilty of murder?
It's a difference in consequence as from a doctor pulling a kidney from my body with versus without my consent. The difference is vast...don't you think?
glassjester
Well-known member
Let's keep this part of the discussion to one thread?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4407455&postcount=26
Rusha, muy point is that if women find themselves in desperate circumstances while pregnant, which they often do, abortions will be inevitable, and there is no way to stop tyhem from having abortions, legal or illegal .
You anti-choicers fail to realize the fact that more abortions happen in countries where it is illegal than where it is legal . I'm just saying that laws against abortion are absolutely futile . This doesn't mean that as a pro-choicer I liek abortions and want them to happen .
I'm just realistic enough to realize how futile it is to try to stop women from having abortions .
I I were to shoot and kill you, which of course I have absolutely no intention of doing, it would be very easy for the courts to try me for murder and convict me.
But trying to stop women from having abortions and prosecuting them and the abortionists for murder is virtually impossible .
Only an infinitely tiny fraction of all the countless abortions which have happened in world history have been criminally prosecuted .
If our governmet makes abortion illegal again , abortion will INCREASE , and the police will NOT be able to enforce the law.
They may be a handful of arrests and convictions, but it will only be an infinitely tiny fraction of all the illegal abortions which will happen . This is exactly the way things were before Roe v Wade .
It won't be pretty, I guarantee you ! Be careful of what you ask for ! And even if Roe had never happened , there would still have been millions of abortions . WE would NOT have 50 million more people in America, as you anti-choicers delude yourselves into thinking .
You anti-choicers fail to realize the fact that more abortions happen in countries where it is illegal than where it is legal . I'm just saying that laws against abortion are absolutely futile . This doesn't mean that as a pro-choicer I liek abortions and want them to happen .
I'm just realistic enough to realize how futile it is to try to stop women from having abortions .
I I were to shoot and kill you, which of course I have absolutely no intention of doing, it would be very easy for the courts to try me for murder and convict me.
But trying to stop women from having abortions and prosecuting them and the abortionists for murder is virtually impossible .
Only an infinitely tiny fraction of all the countless abortions which have happened in world history have been criminally prosecuted .
If our governmet makes abortion illegal again , abortion will INCREASE , and the police will NOT be able to enforce the law.
They may be a handful of arrests and convictions, but it will only be an infinitely tiny fraction of all the illegal abortions which will happen . This is exactly the way things were before Roe v Wade .
It won't be pretty, I guarantee you ! Be careful of what you ask for ! And even if Roe had never happened , there would still have been millions of abortions . WE would NOT have 50 million more people in America, as you anti-choicers delude yourselves into thinking .
glassjester
Well-known member
None of that explains why my mother should be given the legal right to kill me.
Because if she didn't have the right, she'd just do it anyway? Come on.
glassjester
Well-known member
Besides, it's not as if supporting pro-life legislation means you must not support social reforms that benefit impoverished mothers and children.
Why can't I want both of those things?
Why can't I want both of those things?
Exactly ... this is why the "women are poor" rings so shallow.
The conditions of desperation and poverty are not green lights to kill another human being. Making murder illegal has not stopped murder. By your logic, there should be no laws against murder.
Which is still not a valid argument for a mother to intentionally kill her unborn child ...
Oh ... in the same way that I do not like rape or assault and do not want them to happen, BUT it will still happen, regardless.
Whether or not you wish to admit it, abortions WOULD drastically reduce by making them illegal. The ability to kill one's child should not be "safe".
Not being able to convict someone of a crime doesn't equate to an act being harmless. The difference that you don't seem to understand in the above scenario is that unlike an unborn baby, I am NOT helpless. At least I can defend myself.
People get away with committing violent acts all the time ... however, that doesn't mean we throw out laws against abuse and assault or any other violent acts.
That's not relevant ... for the reasons I have already pointed out.
Which still has nothing to do with abortion being legal or moral ...
Seriously, women killing their own children. This is the action you wish to defend.
Since when is shredding an unborn baby into multiple pieces *pretty*?
I'm sure it's possible...it's only that pesky, self-serving, selective take on "benefits" that get in your way.
glassjester
Well-known member
Look. Abortions are lethal. Could killing an unborn child "benefit" an impoverished mother? Financially, sure. Does that make it just? No way.
If a poor, single mom has a 5-year-old kid, a 1-year old kid, and is 3 months pregnant - she might think, "I can't afford 3 kids. One of them has to die."
I say she'd be wrong to kill any of them.
Can you tell me which one should die, and why?
Well, first you're making specious connections to abortion via a presumption that "impoverished mothers" per se are justifications for abortion....the issue is more complex than simple impoverishment.
Impoverishment, though important, is a side issue...more accurately, the insistence upon the poor, pregnant woman to birth a child (against her will) only exacerbates her already dire financial situation..and as such is a check-mark against the lack of pragmatic considerations inherent to pro-life ideology.