Do you agree that pre-born humans are NOT entitled to any rights or even the right to live?

[g5000]

Some humans are viable at 22 weeks of in the womb. I take it that you support killing humans five minutes before they're due to be delivered. Am I right?

I think that's a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor...

Nobody goes through 22 weeks of pregnancy and then has an abortion for fun. Usually, if an abortion is happening that late, it's because something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy.

Nope. The vast majority of abortions are convenience abortions.

 

[MACAULAY]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

The decision to become a parent isn’t based on “convenience”, it’s based on whether you’re in a position financially and emotionally to commit to bearing a raising a child. Becoming a parent is a lifelong commitment.

Every child deserves to be love and wanted. A child is not a “consequence”. It is a person deserving of the best a parent can give.

If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. The rest is none of your business.

_______

If you do believe in abortion, you better get in the first 20-25 weeks, before there is a heartbeat and it can feel pain---or else you are a crass selfish Bitch at the least.

And, if you care, for you convenience to wait until the 8th or 9th month--when the baby is fully capable of living on it's on--IF NOT MURDERED...then you belong in prison.

What nonsense you Bolsheviks try to sell. You claim a child deserves the "best a parent can give", but if the mother has found a new boyfriend by her 8th month, and it would affect her emotional "health" to ask the new stud to be stuck with someone else's baby--then MURDER it, so no one will be inconvenienced.

Fuck you.

______

 

[Richard-H]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

Legally 'pre-borns' are not considered to be a human life.

I've often suggested that a fetus or embryo be considered an individual when it has DNA that is unique from the Mother's. But for some reason the 'right-to-life' groups haven't taken interest in that approach.

Perhaps they really do not want abortion to be made illegal. Ulterior motives?

What the fuck are you talking about?

If "pre-borns" are not considered a human life, then why are people who assault pregnant women and kill their unborn child charged with homicide?

And per your DNA argument - are you fucking kidding me? WE POINT THIS OUT ALL THE TIME. The child's DNA is unique from the mothers the MOMENT it is conceived.

The ignorance of you baby killers is truly astounding.

I agree that there's a huge inconsistency with charging people with crimes against a unborn child while abortion laws seem to deny the child's humanity.

I have NEVER heard any pro-lifers acknowledge my argument about fetal DNA. You are the first.

I am very much against abortion. I believe that the fetus (embryo) should be protected under the Constitution whenever it has DNA unique from the Mother's. I don't exactly know when that is, but I'd guess your right...the moment of conception.

I just don't believe that pro-life groups have ever tried to raise the argument of unique DNA in any court case. It does meet the criteria for overturning settled law (New Evidence based on new technology).

 

[TNHarley]

I don't consider the unborn a person. So no.

So one second before birth the fetus is not a person?

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I would say that the DNA of an embryo is a potential unique individual.

But at when point during gestation that does potential become realized ?

They arent an individual.

 

[g5000]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

if a woman is about to enter an abortion clinic to have an abortion.......

and you stop her.....talk to her....convince her that all life is precious! and that abortion is MURDER!......

so she changes her mind.......decides to have the baby.....

and the baby grows up to be a gay, liberal, atheist democrat......

do you want to abort it NOW?

is all life precious unless it is gay and atheist and liberal?

I am pro-life, period. I don't care if the human being who is not aborted is gay or whatever.

 

[g5000]

In order to have any meaning, a "right" must be something one can exercise. Those not born obviously do not qualify.

O'rly?

So someone who is retarded can be executed?

You have ZERO understanding of what rights are.

 

[g5000]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

The decision to become a parent isn’t based on “convenience”, it’s based on whether you’re in a position financially and emotionally to commit to bearing a raising a child. Becoming a parent is a lifelong commitment.

Every child deserves to be love and wanted. A child is not a “consequence”. It is a person deserving of the best a parent can give.

If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. The rest is none of your business.

Only for the woman, right?

The decision to become a parent should be made in the bedroom, not the operating room.

So if the rape or neglected use of contraceptive occurred in the bedroom the woman made a bad choice and must deal with the consequences.. no matter how much she was beaten..

This is probably the most insidious argument made by pro-abortionists.

Less than two percent of abortions are because of rape or incest, and yet you pigs have no problem using these victims of some of the worst crimes as your human shields to protect the 50 million abortions which had NOTHING to do with rape or incest.

You make me sick.

 

[Slade3200]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

What kind of sick human being hacks of pieces of themself?

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. ...

Factually untrue.

how so?

What “part of her body” has a distinct DNA?

do you usually answer questions with questions? Is that how we should continue this discussion?

Would you like to save some time and admit now that you were wrong?

Would you care to actually answer a question and have a direct conversation or are we going to just keep responding with questions and go nowhere?

 

[Richard-H]

While I'm anti-abortion, I believe that as a society we should take responsibility for our actions.

If we make abortion illegal we also should have nation-wide public childcare centers and job training programs for young mothers.

As of now we have an ABORTION BASED ECONOMY.

We do not pay young people enough to support children. It is a crime of our times. In almost EVERY other society in history young peo9ple (mostly men) are paid enough to feed, house and clothe a family.

In modern day America, it takes 2 college educated people with additional training to live an average standard of living - most people can not afford a family until they're in their late 20s or early 30s.

If abortion were made legal their would be millions of young women that can not afford to support their children Their would be millions of young men that also can not support a family.

The result would be generations of extremely angry young people. Angry enough to have a massive revolution.

Capitalism depends on abortion!

 

[Unkotare]

Factually untrue.

how so?

What “part of her body” has a distinct DNA?

do you usually answer questions with questions? Is that how we should continue this discussion?

Would you like to save some time and admit now that you were wrong?

Would you care to actually answer a question and have a direct conversation or are we going to just keep responding with questions and go nowhere?

I’ve already refuted your stupid claim.

 

[Leo123]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

What kind of sick human being hacks of pieces of themself?

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

Sick people.

 

[Slade3200]

how so?

What “part of her body” has a distinct DNA?

do you usually answer questions with questions? Is that how we should continue this discussion?

Would you like to save some time and admit now that you were wrong?

Would you care to actually answer a question and have a direct conversation or are we going to just keep responding with questions and go nowhere?

I’ve already refuted your stupid claim.

you call saying “factually untrue” as a refutation? Ok buddy. Well done

 

[buttercup]

I don't consider the unborn a person. So no.

So one second before birth the fetus is not a person?

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

 

[Slade3200]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

What kind of sick human being hacks of pieces of themself?

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

Sick people.

Actually yes that’s true. Many sick people get pieces of themselves removed in order to get better. That’s part of medicine.

 

[Leo123]

I realize that many believe that women shouldn't be forced to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy. But why does the woman's "right" to not be inconvenienced trump a pre-born human's right to live their life?

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

What kind of sick human being hacks of pieces of themself?

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

Sick people.

Actually yes that’s true. Many sick people get pieces of themselves removed in order to get better. That’s part of medicine.

Pregnancy is not a sickness.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good question. A pre-born human is literally still a piece of the mother, growing inside her body. That is the obvious grey area.

what are your thoughts? Should preborn humans have the exact same rights and born humans?

What kind of sick human being hacks of pieces of themself?

uhh people do that kind of stuff all the time. Is that the best point you can come up with?

Sick people.

Actually yes that’s true. Many sick people get pieces of themselves removed in order to get better. That’s part of medicine.

Pregnancy is not a sickness.

No shit. I wasn’t equating the two

 

[TNHarley]

I don't consider the unborn a person. So no.

So one second before birth the fetus is not a person?

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

 

[Richard-H]

So one second before birth the fetus is not a person?

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

Being a person does not require independence.

Unique DNA proves individuality.

 

[TNHarley]

Not in my opinion.
Being a person implies many forms of independence which the unborn do not have.

A person is simply human being. (Even the dictionary will tell you that.)

It is an undeniable scientific fact that the pre-born baby is a human being, with a unique set of DNA from the start. An individual person who has never existed before and never will again.

So to add on all sorts of extra qualifications to deny the humanity of an innocent person is either ignorant or immoral, take your pick.

I dont think they are a person. They are not an individual.
I bet you had scrambled chicken this morning too huh?

What you THINK doesn’t matter. As I stated, a person is simply a human being, and it is a scientific FACT that the pre-born baby is a human being, simply in a different stage of life than you and me.

Your analogy is silly, because the eggs that people eat are unfertilized eggs, so to try to equate that with an embryo or fetus is asinine, as obviously fertilization already took place or else the baby wouldn’t exist. And since you asked, no, I don’t eat eggs or scrambled chicken, I’m a vegan. ​

Them being an individual isnt subjective.
Not everyone buys their eggs at the store. So no it isnt asinine. It was a perfectly acceptable analogy.
I didnt say they weren't humans. I said they were not a person. A person implies independence. Individuality.
Different words, my dear. Different meanings.

Being a person does not require independence.

Unique DNA proves individuality.

The definition of person is an individual.
The definition of an individual is seperate.
Hmmm let's thinks about what I just posted and what happens during gestation..
Please, hold your applause!