Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[TemplarKormac]

"Can I ask you a question? On every university campus I visit, somebody stands up and says that God is an evil God to allow all this evil into our world. This person typically says, ‘A plane crashes: Thirty people die, and twenty people live. What kind of a God would arbitrarily choose some to live and some to die?' But when we play God and determine whether a child within a mother’s womb should live, we argue for that as a moral right. So when human beings are given the privilege of playing God, it’s called a moral right. When God plays God, we call it an immoral act. Can you justify this for me?”

-Ravi Zacharias

 

[Coyote]

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons. Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What does this resemble?

What does that resemble? Two cells, an embryo, a human being. To you, it's nothing more than garbage.

No. It doesn't. Neither do dolphins, chimpanzees or dogs even though they are far more sentient and feeling than a blastocyst.

So, you are placing the unborn of other animals in higher regard than an unborn child, then? Sick, Coyote, sick I tell you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

Yet, you pro-choice liberals overwhelmingly choose death.

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons.

Is having abortion for no reason the most frivolous reason of them all?

 

[Lumpy 1]

14 week old human life .. liberals say, let's torture and kill it...

 

[NYcarbineer]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Slavery was legal once,have a moral back bone ,show some integrity.

There is nothing more immoral than a government trying to force women to have babies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Likewise, the people demanding that women must carry out an unwanted pregnancy from conception to birth falter when it comes to inacting the death penalty. Choosing life or death.

Yet, you pro-choice liberals overwhelmingly choose death.

We play God all the time when we decide what creations will live or die for often the most frivolous reasons.

Is having abortion for no reason the most frivolous reason of them all?

Who has an abortion for no reason?

 

[Ernie S.]

So when is a person a person?

Most agree that a fetus becomes a baby by: first, being born, and second, by being able to survive outside the womb.

A preemie can survive after birth with life support equipment. A zygote cannot.

Most pro abortionists agree that a fetus becomes a baby by: first, being born, and second, by being able to survive outside the womb.

Fixed it for you. No charge.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Proof that the radical left isn't interested in "common ground" and proof that the "view" babes go for the throat.

What's the common ground between one person who is pro-choice and another who thinks abortion is murder?

 

[Ernie S.]

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Slavery was legal once,have a moral back bone ,show some integrity.

There is nothing more immoral than a government trying to force women to have babies.

Except perhaps, a government that subsidizes women who kill their babies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If abortion is murder then it's first degree murder and women should be executed for having an abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

14 week old human life .. liberals say, let's torture and kill it...

View attachment 42829

Would you put a woman to death for aborting that fetus?

 

[Lumpy 1]

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Slavery was legal once,have a moral back bone ,show some integrity.

There is nothing more immoral than a government trying to force women to have babies.

Must you always be such a myopic moron....

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is an accurate phrase.

In what way? We're a clump of cells at this very moment! Our entire bodies are made of cells. Yet now, as a clump of cells, we are considered as life, as human beings. But curiously, an unborn child doesn't get that distinction.

Let me ask a couple of questions:

What do you see in the picture below? What does this "fetus" more closely resemble? A dog? A cat? A human being perhaps? The human features are easily distinguishable at three months as you can see here, yet you call this unborn child a "clump of cells with potential." The child has human DNA, beginning at the time of conception, but yet you still call the child a "clump of cells with potential."

Is that a figurative symbolic rendition of you living in your parents' basement?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I imagine that Carly Fiorina's tumor had her DNA, since she's a cancer survivor. Did she put that up for adoption?

What fucked up thing to post,what the hell is wrong with you?

I'm not the one claiming that any part of one's body that has the same DNA should be illegal to remove.

 

[Ernie S.]

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Slavery was legal once,have a moral back bone ,show some integrity.

There is nothing more immoral than a government trying to force women to have babies.

Must you always be such a myopic moron....

Yes. He must.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

It is an accurate phrase.

Accurate meaning what? What will that so called clump become? As opposed to other "clumps" that won't become anything viable?

You people use the term "clump of cells" like it's universal to every aspect of the human body. Some cells become special things if you don't kill it. Other clumps are actually trying to kill the person they are in. You can't seem to see the difference.

In the earliest stages of development it is nothing more than a clump of cells with potential. That is it.

And what does a cancer clump of cells have the chance to become? You want to treat them both the same but they aren't. Cancer would be easy to cure if all you had to do was not go have sex with someone and not get it. A child deserves a bit more respect and consideration than that don't you think? Cancer is a clump of cells you have no control over. A child is the result of your own actions and can never happen without your consent and participation.

 

[Lumpy 1]

14 week old human life .. liberals say, let's torture and kill it...

View attachment 42829

Would you put a woman to death for aborting that fetus?

Nope, if she's a truly moral person she'll torture herself for a lifetime.

Would you kill that human life yourself?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

no, a baby is a human being and shouldn't be murdered.....and when the baby is born the woman can give up the baby and live her life...without killing another human being.......

What you call it is irrelevant. The idea that there is no material difference between you as you are today and a 5 day old human blastocyst is absurd.

Ahhh by your logic, what you say is irrelevant.

Your opinion is just that.
Opinions are like assholes everyone's got one and most stink.

The law defines humans as persons only when they fit the legal requirements. A fetus is not a person, 'human being' or not.

Slavery was legal once,have a moral back bone ,show some integrity.

There is nothing more immoral than a government trying to force women to have babies.

There's nothing more immoral than killing your own child.

 

[jknowgood]

So fetuses have human DNA. And that supports the right-to-control-others-lives arguments how?

Is not an abortion the ultimate control over the life of another?

No, that's control over one's own body.

For 9 months? To let a life live a lifetime?