If someone believes that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a child(and Bob Blaylock has, more than once) then asking him what measures should be taken to protect the life of that “child” isn’t ridiculous.
Oh, you mean those two born (and well past the age where they could take care of their basic needs, and thus have certainly achieved viability by your definition) persons who shot the kid? They’re subhuman animals, now? So I suppose since you consider them subhuman animals, they can be aborted at will?
Excellent argument for your side, there, bub.
Apple’s and oranges. You’re on the side that wants to strip human beings of their rights and humanity based merely on their age and stage of development. I say that when someone, with the degree of knowledge and understanding that these vermin surely had of the significance of their acts, choose to commit such a major violation of another human being’s right to exist, that they forfeit their own right to be regarded as human beings. They have chosen this, of their own free will.
But then I am on the side that values the life and rights of an innocent child more than I value the life and rights of a conscienceless, murdering monster. You appear to be on the side that holds the opposite view.
Then you would be wrong. I merely point out that you can’t call them subhuman animals (i.e. not deserving of being considered human) and still have any credibility when offering a definition of what is ‘human’ that includes something that looks decidedly less human than they are.
This! Thank you! While I am vigorously pro-choice, and constantly ask the opposition to try to understand my point of view, the balancing moral duty is for us to try to understand their point of view.
I disagree with their p.o.v., obviously, and I will always oppose their efforts to use the vast power of the law to compel us to follow their views and beliefs. But we do owe them the basic decency of respecting the integrity of their beliefs. (And, of course, to insist they show us the same decency.)
And this is one of the reasons the answer to the OP seems to be a resounding “NO”. The inability for some to understand that others might be starting from a different philosophical position is astounding. A pro-life stance means that one wants to inflict suffering upon women? :rolleyes: A fetus is a mindless lump of flesh? That’s SO helpful!! :rolleyes::rolleyes: You and your brethren really need to lighten the fuck up.
And that come from someone who is pro-choice.
It isn’t a person…so emotionalizing it doesn’t make it so. Why not call it am adolescent and then more people will be pro choice?
Do you have a uterus?
By forcing a woman to breed against her will is indeed inflicting suffering upon women. Are you a woman?
No you’re not, you are on the side of the embryo, we are on the side of children
Forgive me, evidently you are at such a pitch of emotion (no doubt provoked by the use of the word “child”) that I can’t quite understand your argument. Why would I call an unborn infant an adolescent?
Why does it matter to you whether I still have my uterus?
What gives you the idea that I want a woman to breed against her will"? (:rolleyes:) You’re couching the argument in a way that simply demonizes. There are few bad players in the abortion debate. No one is “pro-abortion”. And no one holds a position because they hate women or want to see them suffer. Start from there and we might have a chance of getting somewhere.
And, no, I am not a woman. But I am fervently pro-choice. My point was that the language used by DT, and now, you, is counter-productive in the extreme.
You cannot honestly claim to be on the side of children, so long as you take a position that it should be legal or acceptable to kill them.
Czarcasm, would you be upset if I said I’m pro-abortion, or pro-choice rather, but I can see that an embryo (or fetus, if you like), is a person? Let’s just call it like it is.
There were 1.06 million legal abortions in this country in 2011
There were 32,367 motor vehicle deaths
There were 11,101 gun homicides
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
These are acceptable sacrifices in return for freedom … the freedom to not carry a child to term against your will, the freedom to travel efficiently and conveniently, and the freedom to protect yourself against criminals.
But that’s not how it is; they are not people. What makes a person is the mind; if someone doesn’t have a mind they are brain dead, and we can and do break them up for parts because they are not people even if they were walking and talking the week before.
Embryos are not children.
I’ll accept your definition of “people”, but not of “brain-dead”.
Here’s my definition: Human embryo is human. It’s alive, and it’s growing into a human, not a turtle, not a Cocker Spaniel. I can accept that the life of the mother, the quality of the life of the mother, the quality of the life of the fetus after it’s born, and the effect of an unwanted child on Society bears on my judgement regarding abortion.
My opinion doesn’t affect reality … define the embryo anyway you like, I don’t care, it’s still an unborn child. You can say it’s brain-dead it you like, or a mass of tissue if you want. I don’t care. I’m willing to grant that, in my opinion, the lives of fetuses are an acceptable sacrifice in return for the benefit to the mother, and to society, of ending the pregnancy.
It’s hypocritical to me for a society to say, “Soldiers can die in battle, it’s worth it to protect our freedom”, when really they mean ‘protect the wealth of the richest elite and the power of the rulers.’
Say what it is. Say, “We accept soldiers will go to war and die in battle to secure oil supplies”.
Similarly, we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.”
No, we should say “These women have absolute control over their bodies, and these women get to decide who and what is allowed to enter or remain inside their bodies, regardless of how this object or person got inside.”
As I see it The side of children means when one can be recognized as such. It also means giving up one’s time and money to support the child and it’s mother. In all possible ways. Not just be pro-birth, then forget that it is a living human being and already born.
Too many people, and it seems the one’s who want a woman to carry a conception to it’s fullest, don’t want to pay taxes , give physical, or emotional help. Talk is cheap, and the money spent traveling around the country harassing a woman ,even when she is not going to a clinic for an abortion, that money could go to a fund to help the woman. If one puts themselves in the shoes of another perhaps they would understand. There is such a thing as self defense. If one doesn’t know the woman’s circumstance they have no right to judge her. It seems to be so easy for some to look for what they call sins, to forget about their own. Strange but there are many so called pro-life people that approve of a war where many innocent lives are lost, even some pregnant women!
You admit with your own words ,"it is growing into human, so it is not yet a human.
" … we should just say, “These babies, or soon-to-be-babies, are unwanted, and we accept that killing then is preferable to raising them.”
That, too. I don’t see the conflict. It’s a matter of perspective.
Here’s the hypocrisy. I’ll say it again …** here’s the hypocrisy**: Woman number one is pregnant, doesn’t want to be pregnant, and would like to have the “not yet a human” removed from her body ASAP.
Woman number two is pregnant, married, wants a family and is decorating a nursery. An armed criminal shoots her in a robbery attempt, she lives, but her “unborn child” is killed. The robber is charged with murder.
See? defining the fetus’s humanity or personhood isn’t up to a political or religious debate, it’s up to the whim of the mother. Even if she were on her way to an abortion clinic to get an abortion, a mugger who killed her fetus would be charged with murder. It’s then up to the whim of the authorities.
It’s hypocrisy. We don’t need to argue the “human-ness” of an unborn child. It’s ridiculous. If a woman wants to end the pregnancy, the doctor kills the “baby-to-be” and removes it. If the woman wants to be a mother, the doctor waits until she gives birth, and slaps it on the behind. In either case, it’s the same human/ non-human. The intentions of the mother don’t change the nature of the being inside her, it’s the same “thing” in both cases.
Or we can use more accurate terms, like “fertilized eggs” and “embryo”(depending on how far along the pregnancy is). Less confusing that way, wouldn’t you say?