A question for those who support abortion.

[RWNJ]

Eight pages of replies and no one has answered the question yet. About par for the course, wouldn't you say?

 

[sakinago]

Nope.

But the right wing would deny millions and millions of health care if they could, yet they call themselves pro-life. What a fraud

Notice the need for deflection, deflection by means of a strawman argument I might add.

Never really heard even the “extreme” guys on the right to ever call for the barring of people from health care. That’s an odd one, and just a wild way of thinking of not only equating health insurance with healthcare, but also equating not wanting single payer healthcare with wanting to stop people from getting healthcare. If healthcare really is a “right” to be provided by the government, then that means that you or I have no recourse or right to complain about a person who lives off of soda, smokes, drinks heavily, eats fast food, is overweight, doesn’t exercise, addicted to drugs, doesn’t manage their diabetes or other chronic condition, or is a amateur daredevil that really sucks at dangerous stunts. Even though you and I might take care of our bodies, make an effort to eat right, and get some exercise, and we don’t strain the system anywhere near as much as the former do. Does that sound “fair” to you?

 

[Timmy]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

If a women is giving birth at 28 weeks , there’s some really f-up stuff going on .

Good luck getting a murder charge .

 

[sakinago]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

 

[Timmy]

Eight pages of replies and no one has answered the question yet. About par for the course, wouldn't you say?

The FIRST reply in this thread answered your question!!

You don’t care about the answer .

 

[RWNJ]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

Both babies were at the same stage of development. So why is one murder and the other not murder?

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

So, does that mean it's dead before it is born?

 

[TNHarley]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

 

[RDD_1210]

91.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

Abortion | Data and Statistics | Reproductive Health | CDC

And your ridiculous scenario is about 28 weeks. What is your point? Want to advocate outlawing abortions after 28 weeks? Go for it.

I would rather outlaw liberals at 1 week gestation, that way the world would be a better place as the miserable wretches wouldn't be around to FORCE the rest of Us with their misery and poverty...

View attachment 169403

I will gladly debate you on any of the ridiculously wrong elements in your retarded meme. Pick any of them and let's do it. But it can only be you and me, no outside help.

Deal?

 

[RDD_1210]

A fetus isnt capable until it comes out. Until then, it isnt capable of the most basic human functions. Such as consumption, breathing etc
You can say basic biology defies logic if you want. It makes you look illogical.

Seems most states consider it murder if you kill the 'fetus' when you kill the mother.

man arrested for killing unborn babies - Yahoo Search Results

I know. Thats not the same thing, though. The mother alone has the right to decide whether to rid herself of the unborn. Not someone else.

Here is a link to a photo of an aborted 28 week old fetus. Take a good look and tell me it is not a person. I dare you.

Redirect Notice

Do you have any idea how many abortions are happening at 28 weeks?

Hint: VERY little.

Why are you avoiding the question? This is not a matter of scale. It is a simple question. Is there a difference between babies at the same stage of development whether they are inside the womb or not? Is there a difference in killing it inside or outside the womb? Answer the question.

They are not at the same stage. One is born and can biologically function independently. The other has not and can not.

 

[TNHarley]

Seems most states consider it murder if you kill the 'fetus' when you kill the mother.

man arrested for killing unborn babies - Yahoo Search Results

I know. Thats not the same thing, though. The mother alone has the right to decide whether to rid herself of the unborn. Not someone else.

Here is a link to a photo of an aborted 28 week old fetus. Take a good look and tell me it is not a person. I dare you.

Redirect Notice

Do you have any idea how many abortions are happening at 28 weeks?

Hint: VERY little.

Why are you avoiding the question? This is not a matter of scale. It is a simple question. Is there a difference between babies at the same stage of development whether they are inside the womb or not? Is there a difference in killing it inside or outside the womb? Answer the question.

They are not at the same stage. One is born and can biologically function independently. The other has not and can not.

Give them a break. Basic biology probably stole their girlfriend.

 

[RWNJ]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

 

[sakinago]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

Both babies were at the same stage of development. So why is one murder and the other not murder?

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

 

[TNHarley]

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

See what i mean RDD_1210
SMH

 

[RWNJ]

Seems most states consider it murder if you kill the 'fetus' when you kill the mother.

man arrested for killing unborn babies - Yahoo Search Results

I know. Thats not the same thing, though. The mother alone has the right to decide whether to rid herself of the unborn. Not someone else.

Here is a link to a photo of an aborted 28 week old fetus. Take a good look and tell me it is not a person. I dare you.

Redirect Notice

Do you have any idea how many abortions are happening at 28 weeks?

Hint: VERY little.

Why are you avoiding the question? This is not a matter of scale. It is a simple question. Is there a difference between babies at the same stage of development whether they are inside the womb or not? Is there a difference in killing it inside or outside the womb? Answer the question.

They are not at the same stage. One is born and can biologically function independently. The other has not and can not.

Wrong. You just contradicted yourself. The other has not but could, would be more accurate.

 

[alang1216]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

If you're asking a legal question the state where the abortion takes place is critical. In some states it is illegal to have a 28-week abortion. It that makes it murder (I doubt it) or manslaughter or something less I don't know.

If you're asking a moral comparison that is very different. If the life of the mother is in peril or if the mother judges the child's quality of life too painful then abortion is OK IMHO. Otherwise I don't see why abortion should be an option. It is hard to fathom a women carrying a child/fetus for 28 weeks but doesn't really want it so you scenario doesn't seem realistic.

Let me ask you, are there any circumstances when you'd think an abortion is acceptable?

 

[Flash]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

These stupid Moon Bats don't think that killing a child is killing. They think they are are disposing of an inorganic mass or something.

It is either because they are immoral assholes that don't see what is wrong with killing children (like the Nazis) or maybe it is that they have no understanding of biology like they have no understanding of history or economics.

 

[RWNJ]

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

Both babies were at the same stage of development. So why is one murder and the other not murder?

They aren't at the same stage of development. One was born, the other was not.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t at the same stage of development. That’s why we have the term pre-mature, because the baby comes before it has reached standard maturity. They are both at the same stages. One with medical complications as in the premature birth, and one with no medical complications.

Once the kid is born, he or she is a living, breathing person apart from the mother. He or she is also a citizen with full constitutional rights and protections.

That’s not at all what our law states, there is a limit to abortion on demand. That would mean you could get an abortion on your due date. If they weren’t protected and afforded rights while in utero, I could go around punching women in the stomach or slipping them abortion pills and only be charged with assault, not murder.

Fetuses also breath, a 28 week YO fetus has the ability to breath, though it’s not as capable as a baby carried to term at breathing on its own. Plenty of babies carried to term still have difficulty breathing on the their own. ALL babies are dependent on someone for life, they cannot feed themselves, cannot keep themselves warm, need human contact, do not have a developed immune system, etc.

By the arguments I've seen from the left, an adult on life support is not a person because they cannot live without it. Perhaps we should simply disconnect every one of them.

 

[RDD_1210]

Havent you posted this before?
The woman who killed her child murdered it. The one who had an abortion removed a fetus.
When you eat scrambled eggs from a fertilized chicken egg, do you say you are eating scrambled eggs or scrambled chicken?

A. So a fetus only differs from a child based on location with respect to the mother? And when it is a “fetus” there is no death involved, only removal?
B. No one ever eats fertilized chicken eggs. Or I should say a large majority never eat fertilized chicken eggs. Maybe if you own chickens with a rooster...but then there’s also no moral quandary there because your also probably the type of person who will eat the chickens when they start slowing with their egg production. So yes it would be scrambled chicken, and that’s not a moral problem when you eat chicken in the first place.

Dependency for basic human function IE survival is more than location.
This rhetoric is not only worn out, it is idiotic.

I don’t even think you can make sense of what you just said.

A unborn fetus cant breath. Cant consume nutrition. Cant do a lot fo things. It is more than "location" It is its life support. Without her doing everythign for it, it will die. In order to do those things on its own, it must be born.
Its not a "location" that is so stupid.

It could do all of that if it was outside the womb. Which makes it no different than the one that was born. Like I said, your only defense is location. Pathetic.

If it could do all of that outside the womb, why isn't a normal full gestation period 28 weeks? Why does it normally take 36 weeks to come to term?

 

[RWNJ]

Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?

I require a simple yes or no answer. There are no alternatives. They are both guilty of murder, or neither one is.

If you're asking a legal question the state where the abortion takes place is critical. In some states it is illegal to have a 28-week abortion. It that makes it murder (I doubt it) or manslaughter or something less I don't know.

If you're asking a moral comparison that is very different. If the life of the mother is in peril or if the mother judges the child's quality of life too painful then abortion is OK IMHO. Otherwise I don't see why abortion should be an option. It is hard to fathom a women carrying a child/fetus for 28 weeks but doesn't really want it so you scenario doesn't seem realistic.

Let me ask you, are there any circumstances when you'd think an abortion is acceptable?

It's not a scenario. It actually happened.

 

[alang1216]

It's not a scenario. It actually happened.

Life is stranger than fiction but doesn't change my opinion.