Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.
only it's age.
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
only it's age.
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
You keep posting a conclusion with no proof. Sure that's your opinion, but WHY isn't it a person?
I disagree...and I've got more logic on my side.
#1 it's alive
#2 it can only be human.
BOOM! No other mental gymnastics are needed.
When you abort a child, you're ending the life of a human.
So...you know...one weird guy saying something...ok. He's just a kook. But intelligence has been described as sophisticated PATTERN RECOGNITION.
GOP official says God chooses to bless raped women with pregnancy - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com
only it's age.
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
You keep posting a conclusion with no proof. Sure that's your opinion, but WHY isn't it a person?
I disagree...and I've got more logic on my side.
#1 it's alive
#2 it can only be human.
BOOM! No other mental gymnastics are needed.
When you abort a child, you're ending the life of a human.
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
You keep posting a conclusion with no proof. Sure that's your opinion, but WHY isn't it a person?
I disagree...and I've got more logic on my side.
#1 it's alive
#2 it can only be human.
BOOM! No other mental gymnastics are needed.
When you abort a child, you're ending the life of a human.
Do you also feel, when you unplug a brain dead man from life support, are you also ending the life of a human?
You keep posting a conclusion with no proof. Sure that's your opinion, but WHY isn't it a person?
I disagree...and I've got more logic on my side.
#1 it's alive
#2 it can only be human.
BOOM! No other mental gymnastics are needed.
When you abort a child, you're ending the life of a human.
Do you also feel, when you unplug a brain dead man from life support, are you also ending the life of a human?
The two are not analogous as one is alive at the time you're killing it and another is already dead when you're removing the support. The support isn't keeping him alive, as he's already brain dead. The baby on the other hand is still living.
You keep posting a conclusion with no proof. Sure that's your opinion, but WHY isn't it a person?
I disagree...and I've got more logic on my side.
#1 it's alive
#2 it can only be human.
BOOM! No other mental gymnastics are needed.
When you abort a child, you're ending the life of a human.
Do you also feel, when you unplug a brain dead man from life support, are you also ending the life of a human?
The two are not analogous as one is alive at the time you're killing it and another is already dead when you're removing the support. The support isn't keeping him alive, as he's already brain dead. The baby on the other hand is still living.
I really don't want to argue abortion with you. The moment a majority of medical experts define a zygot as a human being, I will hop on the pro-life boat.
And there in lies the reason this is a hopeless debate. If we were talking about a live child no one would argue against you don't take their life. While I am not pro-life I admire the conviction of Aiken and this women because they are willing to stand by their beliefs even in the most troubling circumstances.
The problem is none of us truely know and the belief of when life commences is truely that a belief. As such, the government shouldn't impose one communities belief system on the other.
Did Aiken and this women chose their words poorly? Yes. Did they use pseudo science to justify their actions. Sure but Republicans have been doing this for the past decade. The whole party is based on anti-intellectualism. That fact is who they are. But you have to admire people who stand by their belief in something as weighty as taking another human life even in a situation where it is sure to draw criticism. Instead of attacking Aiken democrats should be willing to say he is right and ask people are you so sure that life begins at conception that you are willing to demand a rape victim carry the resulting baby. This is the acid test of the pro-life movement.
Life begins at conception. You might not believe that, but it doesnt change that people do know when life begins. That's when a new life has begun. An Individual with a unique strain of DNA now exists. That's a fact.
It's great that Republicans want to spread the rapist's genes as far as possible and force women to be reminded of their rape every day for the rest of their lives.
They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.
only it's age.
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
No, it's a terrible analogy. As you failed to set up a comparison of beings in the same state.
Not only is one already dead and the other still living, but you've got another problem. One has a brain that can never recover, the other has a brain that will certainly work.
There's no getting around that you're scraping living human tissue out of the mother, destroying it. It's alive...and you stop it from remaining alive. Otherwise, you wouldn't need the procedure to protect you from the consequences.
Noomi, brain dead is brain dead. A heartbeat doesn't make someone alive by itself. Good try though.
only it's age.
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
That's not a fact at all. That's total nonsense.
And there in lies the reason this is a hopeless debate. If we were talking about a live child no one would argue against you don't take their life. While I am not pro-life I admire the conviction of Aiken and this women because they are willing to stand by their beliefs even in the most troubling circumstances.
The problem is none of us truely know and the belief of when life commences is truely that a belief. As such, the government shouldn't impose one communities belief system on the other.
Did Aiken and this women chose their words poorly? Yes. Did they use pseudo science to justify their actions. Sure but Republicans have been doing this for the past decade. The whole party is based on anti-intellectualism. That fact is who they are. But you have to admire people who stand by their belief in something as weighty as taking another human life even in a situation where it is sure to draw criticism. Instead of attacking Aiken democrats should be willing to say he is right and ask people are you so sure that life begins at conception that you are willing to demand a rape victim carry the resulting baby. This is the acid test of the pro-life movement.
Life begins at conception. You might not believe that, but it doesnt change that people do know when life begins. That's when a new life has begun. An Individual with a unique strain of DNA now exists. That's a fact.
An organism with a unique strain of DNA exists. But the organism looks more like an amphibian than a human for much of early life. No one questions killing an amphibian. The question is when does the body become human and for me when does it possess a human soul. You don't have the answer to that question nor do I.
It's great that Republicans want to spread the rapist's genes as far as possible and force women to be reminded of their rape every day for the rest of their lives.
You don't understand the Atonement of Christ do you?
Is it really a child's fault that his/her father is a rapist?
And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.
That's not a fact at all. That's total nonsense.
I'm sorry, but it is a fact - at least where I come from. A fetus has no rights until it is born.
The problem is none of us truely know and the belief of when life commences is truely that a belief. As such, the government shouldn't impose one communities belief system on the other.
Think about that a bit more mathematically for a second. You've got a 50/50 chance to kill a baby or not to kill a baby. Does one choice seem smarter than the other, taking into account the probabilities?
Make it more direct than a pregnancy. Let's take an ACTUAL BABY. Hold a Springfield .40 cal to its head. The guy who gave it to you said "I've had that thing for 30 years. It only has a 50 50 chance of firing." Would you feel comfortable pulling the trigger? Of course not!
I really wish humans had evolved with clear stomachs during pregnancy. Maybe if people could SEE the baby...they'd respect its life.
That's not a fact at all. That's total nonsense.
I'm sorry, but it is a fact - at least where I come from. A fetus has no rights until it is born.
So according to your logic, if we say gay people have no rights, we should be allowed to kill them?
It's great that Republicans want to spread the rapist's genes as far as possible and force women to be reminded of their rape every day for the rest of their lives.
You don't understand the Atonement of Christ do you?
Is it really a child's fault that his/her father is a rapist?
Is it the woman's fault she was raped? No - so why should we force her to endure more pain and torment by making her give birth to a rape baby?
I'm sorry, but it is a fact - at least where I come from. A fetus has no rights until it is born.
So according to your logic, if we say gay people have no rights, we should be allowed to kill them?
Gay people are not fetuses, are they?
