Zone1 Abortion is murder and I can't find any way to show otherwise.

[Sparker]

Your attempt ______

Fetuses are potential humans. Unrealized gains are potential gains. Debating exactly when potential becomes real could be done with someone who shouts less.

 

[Sparker]

If a pregnant woman can't get an abortion and can't work while pregnant, then she and the fetus may both die of homelessness or work injuries. I don't see any desk pounders volunteering to pay more taxes so all pregnant women can have maternity leave.

But we will need more kids, very soon. We have an excess of seniors becoming too old to work and a lack of kids ready to be the next generation. Making parenthood more feasible for the poor and struggling is a problem we need to solve with very little time to solve it.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm surprised by the people i see say "it isn't a fetus until X amount of days" or "it isn't a fetus until this or that is formed".

First it's a blob, then a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a pre teen, then a teen, then an adult. At no point in any of those stages is it any less of a person. They are all just stages of life development.

And when it can live independently of a woman, it should be accorded all the rights of a person.

Not before.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

If you are so fucking "Pro-Life" why don't you support Common Sense Gun Control. The number one killer of children to is gun violence. You care so fucking much about that baby then support Free School Programs for children who cannot otherwise afford a hot in school. Fucking HYPOCRITE!!!

Gee, wonder who's losing this argument

 

[ChemEngineer]

Fetuses are potential humans. Unrealized gains are potential gains. Debating exactly when potential becomes real could be done with someone who shouts less.

You are an evil liar. Men are in prison for murdering unborn babies. Scott Peterson is just one example, convicted of second-degree murder for killing his own son, Connor.

This baby had a beating heart, and you call that "potential"?
You're sick.

 

[sartre play]

Disagree*

IF you take out the death & damage zero abortions create
Disregard the quality of life those children of unwanted or unable to be supported with food and decent care.
The impact of gangs of them, The cost of jails, welfare, addiction and community safety . The burden of good christen Women
NOT allowed birth control, with to many childern who live in poverty. There is always an other side to any story.

 

[sartre play]

You seem to be sure when life begins but vague about when life ends. When is a human being dead? If a person is in a coma and a brain scan shows activity are they dead? If a person is in a coma and a brain scan shows NO activity are they dead?

This is the same group of people who fought so hard to keep that brain dead woman alive for purely political reasons. Any one remember her name?

 

[Curried Goats]

This is the same group of people who fought so hard to keep that brain dead woman alive for purely political reasons. Any one remember her name?

Terri Schiavo

 

[ChemEngineer]

IF you take out the death & damage zero abortions create
Disregard the quality of life those children of unwanted or unable to be supported with food and decent care.
The impact of gangs of them, The cost of jails, welfare, addiction and community safety . The burden of good christen (sic) Women
NOT allowed birth control, with to (sic) many childern (sic) who live in poverty. There is always an other (sic) side to any story.

Your solution then is to make it illegal for poor people to have "childern (sic)," right? In decades gone by, many women and men got married when she got pregnant and they had successful marriages.

Your pathetic spelling ability marks you as a terribly uneducated person, probably susceptible to repetitive lies, most particularly "a woman's right to choose."

The result of this evil lie has been the murder of 60,000,000 or more, heavily in the black community as Margaret Sanger wanted "to eliminate the Negro population."

You have adopted her racist mentality. Are you proud?
_______________________________________

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Traitors Who Support Sedition Against Us Republic "

* Simpletons Gas Lighting *

Anything that can be alienated is alienable and not inalienable .

A law exists because there is an entity capable of and issuing a retort for violations of some legal pretext .

By definition , murder is killing that violates a legal pretext against killing .

There is not a natural law against killing , there are only laws instituted by hue mammon against killing that are designated as murder .

 

[forkup]

I say none of this from a religious standpoint or from a political standpoint. I am simply looking at this from a very stark and realistic point of view.

I have tried to examine abortion, look at others points of view and so on but I honestly see no rational or reasonable way to show abortion is not murdering a human being. There is simply no way that abortion is not murdering a child regardless of how you try to spin it.

First of all, if you have an abortion that means you have a child inside you. If you do not have a child inside you then there is nothing to abort. You can't have abortion before there is a child.

Second, once the egg is fertilized and implanted it's a baby. Sure it's a little blob, but unforseen circumstances aside, if you simply leave that blob alone it will be born in 9 months. Once a fertilized egg is implanted it starts a growth period of many stages lasting 17 to 19 years to become an adult. It doesn't matter if it's 11 days after conception or 3 years after conception, it's still a human being in different growth stages. Aborting it 3 weeks is the same as aborting it at 8 months, you are prematurely stopping the life of the baby before it can be born.

This whole "but it doesn't have a heartbeat" doesn't mean it isn't still a human growing inside its mother that if you simply leave it alone it will be born. How is it any different than if as soon as it's born you say "well it can't talk or even stand up so it isn't a human being so I'll end it's life". The only difference is you're saying it's ok to end the babies life before it has grown it's heart and ending it's life before it can talk, both are just ways to justify ending a babies life.

My retort to this is looking at an abortion as a medical decision first. A moral one second. I'll try to illustrate in a hypothetical.

Let's just say a child is born with a serious medical problem requiring a kidney. The only matching donor is the mother of that child. The mother however does not want to give up her kidney.

How many of the pro-life crowd would be comfortable calling that mother a murderer?

I think most people would recognize that one life can not compel another person to make decisions affecting their health negatively. Society as a whole yes. One life for another... no.


Pregnancy carries inherent risks and is uncomfortable a hundred percent of the time. Why gives that unborn life rights to another persons health?

 

[sartre play]

Your solution then is to make it illegal for poor people to have "childern (sic)," right? In decades gone by, many women and men got married when she got pregnant and they had successful marriages.

Your pathetic spelling ability marks you as a terribly uneducated person, probably susceptible to repetitive lies, most particularly "a woman's right to choose."

The result of this evil lie has been the murder of 60,000,000 or more, heavily in the black community as Margaret Sanger wanted "to eliminate the Negro population."

You have adopted her racist mentality. Are you proud?
_______________________________________

And you are just another person who judges people you don't even know.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Fetuses are potential humans. Unrealized gains are potential gains. Debating exactly when potential becomes real could be done with someone who shouts less.

They aren't potential humans. If they are, what are they as potential until they become humans. What is the species? No. They are actually humans in a state of development. An infant isn't a potential human being. It's a stage of human development. It is human because it is nothing else. It is no other species. It can be identified as human by legions of scientific testing.

The question is, should there be an exception to the legal and scientific understanding that says even though this is a human being, it's okay to kill it under certain circumstances.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

My retort to this is looking at an abortion as a medical decision first. A moral one second. I'll try to illustrate in a hypothetical.

Let's just say a child is born with a serious medical problem requiring a kidney. The only matching donor is the mother of that child. The mother however does not want to give up her kidney.

How many of the pro-life crowd would be comfortable calling that mother a murderer?

I think most people would recognize that one life can not compel another person to make decisions affecting their health negatively. Society as a whole yes. One life for another... no.


Pregnancy carries inherent risks and is uncomfortable a hundred percent of the time. Why gives that unborn life rights to another persons health?

Biology, absolutely. It's not like there is an alternative.

 

[forkup]

Biology, absolutely. It's not like there is an alternative.

Can you elaborate a bit? I don't know what you are saying.

 

[forkup]

They aren't potential humans. If they are, what are they as potential until they become humans. What is the species? No. They are actually humans in a state of development. An infant isn't a potential human being. It's a stage of human development. It is human because it is nothing else. It is no other species. It can be identified as human by legions of scientific testing.

The question is, should there be an exception to the legal and scientific understanding that says even though this is a human being, it's okay to kill it under certain circumstances.

The answer to that question seems yes. Killing another human being in certain circumstances is already a well established principle. They call it self-defense. A concept that in my view is applied way to broadly in the US. Generally speaking and pretty ironically in my opinion, by the same crowd that has a problem with abortion.

I don't know how you stand on this issue but can you answer why a person can shoot another person because they MIGHT harm them physically. While at the same time rejecting the notion that a person can kill another person that WILL harm them physically?

To me that's the central argument. To the legal and scientific problem.

 

[TemplarKormac]

a recently impregnated egg is just a clump of bio cells and DNA, dude.

nothing wrong with a day-after pill then is there?

and... late-term abortions : are YOU gonna pay for the kid's upbringing? what if the parents can't for some reason? (economic pressure for instance, which is RAMPANT THESE DAYS #!@!#)

Yikes, when you know what that will eventually develop into, you can't with a straight face say it's a "clump of bio cells and DNA."

Funny though, we don't treat animals that way.

 

[Mac-7]

They aren't potential humans. If they are, what are they as potential until they become humans.

The unborn are human from conception

 

[forkup]

Yikes, when you know what that will eventually develop into, you can't with a straight face say it's a "clump of bio cells and DNA."

Funny though, we don't treat animals that way.

Tell that to a cow.

 

[Mac-7]

The unborn are human from conception

peacefan

What do you think the unborn are if not human?