Of course it is important that the baby is born into a loving home, but don’t you see that from my poit of view you are essentially saying “This child is probably going to have a crappy life, we should kill it”. Who are you to make and enforce such a judgment on another?
I don’t think that the fetus has more value than the mother. As I have already said, I would support abortion when the mothers life is in danger. Hell, the Catholic church supports abortion when the mothers life is in danger!
No, I was trying to be polite by trying to acknowledge the points where there is disagreement so as to better focus the argument on pertinent facts rather than keep making arguments that make assumptions that others don’t agree with which would only confuse things and cause greater irreconcilable conflict.
The ability to survive on your own is not at all a condition to define life. As I said earlier, what about parasites? Or to extend the argument, what about someone who is dependent on a machine, or certain medicines to live, are they any less human?
Not at all. I am saying that the right to kill your baby never has existed, just as the right to control a slaves right never existed even though it was enforced by law as abortion is now.
This is not an issue where we can “agree to disagree”. Again say it was 150 years ago, how much would you respect the argument “If you don’t like slavery don’t own a slave”?
Yes I do but can’t you see that I see this as the wholsale slaughter of thousands of children a year. Your argument only makes sense if the fetus has no human rights.
Death is not a “Pro-Life” position. Unlike in abortion, no one is forcing those women to be injured or die.
Irrelevent.
Quite possibly.
1.You can’t kill a child just because his existance is inconvient to you.
2.Anti-abortion laws would not stop all abortions, but they would stop the vast majority of them.
3.I never admited that. They do not directly maim and kill, unlike allowing abortion which quite assuradly does kill.
No one has called anyone a murderer. I have, in fact, said that I do not beilieve such women to be murderers because they do not realize and understand what they are doing.
Slight nitpick. From what was writting it sounds like the sister was persuaded. Now, without knowing more about the situation we can be sure what the power dynamic was and thus, while I disagree without pretty much all of what Muad’Dib has written so far, it is premature to to say the sister was denied a choice.
Now, with that it mind Muad’Dib seems to be promoting the idea that the sister should have been denied the choice. So really the 'mora’l position is the same. Like I said, nitpick.
By threatening the life of the mother the fetus’s right to life is revoked, just as if a man shooting at me has revoked his right to life by giving me just reason to kill him before he kills me.
If she actively did something to prevent it, quite possibly yes.
Of course not. Murder requires you to have the intent to kill someone. That case would be purely an accidental death.
It is hardly an arbitrary decision. I have already posted my reasoning. It is at that point that a new creature, with its own distinct genetic code is created. It is no longer a potential human being, it is an actual human being starting on the road of life.
How is that not an arbitrary decision? You set up a point that is almost impossible to define and changes as scientific progress continues. What if tomorrow scientists create an artificial womb that can hold a child from the moment of conception, it is living outside the mother now so does its right to life exist according to you then? How is it any different from a man on a respirator?
Because we belive that innocent children are being murderd and we are honor bound to end the practice as soon as possible.
Just because the courts allow something it does not make it right.
I have as much a right and duty to try and stop you as people had 150 years ago to try and end slavery. They had to go to war to force their view on the south.
I don’t dislike abortion just because I think it is “icky”, I hate it because I believe it to be murder. I am not trying to stop people from doing something that I don’t like, I am trying to stop them from killing innocent children. Since this is what I believe what other choice of action could I reasonably have?
Muad’Dib, why do you keep referring to fetuses as “children”? They clearly (and scientifically) are not, and frankly in doing so you seem to be making a rather silly and transparent emotional plea.
Not once you have a seperate life in there. Whether you like it or not you are responsible for it and its safe delivery just as you are responsible for a child that is born. Just as we force a dead-beat dad to be responsible for his children whether he likes it or not.
Maybe show a little humility, admit that you might not have all the answers and what you believe is not necessarily “the TRUTH”, and stop telling people how to run their lives.
Yes, something that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg is an abortion and should be outlawed. However most cotraception, including the cotroversial “morning after pill” do not do that.
Then they should strictly use contraception or get a sterilization procedure done. When my parents decided on not having any more children my father had a vasectomy done. You have to take responsibility for your actions. You can’t kill a child just because it is inconvenient.