A monster gets life!

[tosca1]

Wait a minute....

If a human child is not considered a person because he thinks/behaves like a kitten at a certain stage.....can it not be said that a kitten cannot be considered a cat because it thinks/behaves like a person at a certain stage?

 

[tosca1]

Further furthermore....

So a bunch of scientists/researchers say that a fetus cannot be considered a person for this and that reason....some scientists/researchers contradict that however.

Anyway, why should I have this bunch of scientists decide whether a human is labelled a person or not?
What gives them that power? Just because they're scientists?

There is more to just mere comparison to behaviours and mental thinking of animals that defines a person. Some people know and see that.
The others who can't see and understand the difference perhaps hasn't been able to reach the kind of "elevation" a person has. In other words, those who can't see the difference has not reached their full potential as a person.

 

[tosca1]

Those who lacks insight and depth say the fetus is a parasite.

He is not. That's his right. His entitlement. NATURAL entitlement.


This current generation - of all generation - should understand that word - entitlement - since you're raised in a culture of entitlements! MAN-MADE, CONCOCTED, and SELF-SERVING entitlements.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

If that's the case, we should identify the kitten as a person, can we? If the kitten can compare to mental capabilities of children, and even adult with mental retardation.....and if you're observant, adult cats can show some simple common sense comparable to, and sometimes even lacking in some full-grown men (that shows no retardation)....then cats should be identified as persons.

:roll:

A full grown cat lacks the mental capabilities for identifying itself in the mirror (self consciousness) unlike a healthy human that get's that ability about 3 months of age. That ability also to is linked to also comprehending a continued existence for yourself which humans could gain about close to 3 years of age. Since the cat lacks the first ability it won't have the second ability I just mentioned

And as a human ages from infanthood they get more advanced in the areas of abstract thought, self-awareness and self-expression then your average full grown cat.

I can go on and on but I will stop here since I have to go to school here soon

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Wait a minute....

If a human child is not considered a person because he thinks/behaves like a kitten at a certain stage.....can it not be said that a kitten cannot be considered a cat because it thinks/behaves like a person at a certain stage?

You think ''human'' and ''person'' are the same even though they're not.

Kitten is just a word use for a young cat just like the words ''baby'' and ''child'' are words use to for extremely young humans.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Further furthermore....

So a bunch of scientists/researchers say that a fetus cannot be considered a person for this and that reason....some scientists/researchers contradict that however.

Anyway, why should I have this bunch of scientists decide whether a human is labelled a person or not?
What gives them that power? Just because they're scientists?

There is more to just mere comparison to behaviours and mental thinking of animals that defines a person. Some people know and see that.
The others who can't see and understand the difference perhaps hasn't been able to reach the kind of "elevation" a person has. In other words, those who can't see the difference has not reached their full potential as a person.

Now you're just confused as usual

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Those who lacks insight and depth say the fetus is a parasite.

He is not. That's his right. His entitlement. NATURAL entitlement.

This can be applied to the mosquito that has handed on your arm. It's the mosquitos natural entitlement to take your body resources without your conscious continued consent but you don't accept that and kill the mosquito. So why can't women do it to another entity doing the exact same thing like the mosquito does but much more worse?

Consider the crime of manslaughter. One need not have any intent whatsoever to commit that crime to be declared guilty of it, after the fact (provided that it was indeed a fact). Similarly an unborn human is guilty of committing assault three different ways: First, it sucks someone else’s blood like a mosquito second, it dumps toxic biowaste products into someone else’s blood (body resources) –worse than a mosquito!; and last but not least it injects addictive drugs into someone else’s blood, like the very worst sort of drug pusher. The drugs are “HCG” and “progesterone” the withdrawal symptoms are known as postpartum depression that women have temporality when they abort or give birth.

 

[tosca1]

:roll:

A full grown cat lacks the mental capabilities for identifying itself in the mirror (self consciousness) unlike a healthy human that get's that ability about 3 months of age. That ability also to is linked to also comprehending a continued existence for yourself which humans could gain about close to 3 years of age. Since the cat lacks the first ability it won't have the second ability I just mentioned

And as a human ages from infanthood they get more advanced in the areas of abstract thought, self-awareness and self-expression then your average full grown cat.

Exactly. That's the natural process of development. All living things have that.
Thus the human - at whatever stage of development - is a person. And a cat, at whatever stage of development will always be a cat.

Like I've said, comparison between mental capabilities and behaviours of a toddler and a cat does not make a human a person or not. That offers no basis for your reasoning.

A lot of human adults lack the mental capability to use their common sense!

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by tosca1

Those who lacks insight and depth say the fetus is a parasite.

He is not. That's his right. His entitlement. NATURAL entitlement.

This can be applied to the mosquito that has handed on your arm. It's the mosquitos natural entitlement to take your body resources without your conscious continued consent but you don't accept that and kill the mosquito. So why can't women do it to another entity doing the exact same thing like the mosquito does but much more worse?

Nope. Big difference. I didn't put that mosquito on my arm. It landed on my arm on its own.

How did the fetus get conceived?

 

[Removable Mind]

Nope. Big difference. I didn't put that mosquito on my arm. It landed on my arm on its own.

How did the fetus get conceived?

The stork landed?

 

[tosca1]

Record high number of abortions which are 'repeats'

The statistics for last year disclosed that dozens of women had undergone at least nine terminations.
The figures show that a record 37 per cent of all abortions in England and Wales last year were repeat procedures.

Record high number of abortions which are 'repeats' - Telegraph

Americans Might Spend Millions on Repeat Abortions Under Obamacare

The number of repeat abortions in the US is much more tragic. A 2006 study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) found that 48 percent of women having abortions had undergone a previous abortion. Imagine the outrage if this atrocity of killing siblings occurred when these children were out of the womb.

Americans Might Spend Millions on Repeat Abortions Under Obamacare | LifeNews.com



When a puppy gets burned once, he learns pretty fast that poking his nose in the fire, burns.

There's a consequence for every action .


Pretty simple.

All these women then must be mentally retarded, and anyone else who fails to see and understand this for that matter (in which case, they should all fall under the argued criteria for being non-persons).

 

[choiceone]

Those doctors you are referring to SAVE lives most of the time. They are prison doctors and they also care for the sick prisoners and help them heal. That is not the case with an abortionist, unless there are complications and he saves one of his patients.

Stop using ridiculous comparisons. There is no comparison.

Don't go there. Many OBGYNs are capable of performing and have performed abortions as part of their OBGYN practice and not as specialized abortion providers. In fact, the main difference between having an abortion by an abortion provider in an abortion clinic and having one performed by one's OBGYN in an OBGYN clinic (chemical/medical abortion) or hospital (surgical abortion) is pretty much how much one can afford to pay and is therefore a matter of socioeconomic class. For women with enough education and money, the doctor who provides an abortion also provided your birth control, delivered the kids you gave birth to, and takes care of your GYN needs, and is often the woman's primary doctor.

 

[choiceone]

A majority? I'm not so sure. The majority here sure seem subscribe to a woman's right to choose abortion all the way through pregnancy. Are you really denying that? What I think is funny is how repugnant you find pro-lifers to be yet use the laws pro-lifers get put in place to say, "See, it's not so bad". If it were up to you all, there would be over the counter at home abortion kits available at Wal-greens. Lol.

To support a woman's right to choose abortion late-term in cases where there is an imminent threat to the woman's life or major health functions or even in cases of serious fetal anomaly and severe fetal disability is not subscribing to the right to elective abortion at 8 months. The majority of the people here who suppose a woman's right to choose accept Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey as well as other SC decisions on the issue.

A woman's right to choose abortion is balanced by a doctor's right to decide whether or not to provide one, and that is constrained in responsible legal medical practice by concern for the health and life of the woman all the way to the end of a pregnancy. The later the abortion, the more dangerous it is, and a responsible doctor concerned for the life and health of the woman has to decide whether it would be safer for her to have a caesarian, an induced vaginal delivery, or an abortion.

Go look at the stats in Canada and states like Oregon without late-term bans. They are essentially the same as those places with late-term bans.

Gosnell was a totally irresponsible doctor whose clinic was unhygienic and who failed to follow many health regulations as well as state laws related to late-term abortion long before the monstrous crimes for which he was finally arrested. And if the state government had properly followed up on reports about his clinic, inspected it, and taken action, the way it was publicly expected and paid to do, Gosnell would have been out of business years before he did the crimes for which he was arrest. What does that tell you, a conservative, about state government?

 

[choiceone]

Of course her abortion is immoral and her judgment is suspect. Normal loving parents would always pick their children. You shouldn't doubt this.

1) An embryo is not a child.

2) A pregnant woman is not a parent.

 

[choiceone]

Those who lacks insight and depth say the fetus is a parasite.

He is not. That's his right. His entitlement. NATURAL entitlement.


This current generation - of all generation - should understand that word - entitlement - since you're raised in a culture of entitlements! MAN-MADE, CONCOCTED, and SELF-SERVING entitlements.

I see where you're going, but the fact is that an embryo or fetus is not naturally entitled to be inside and physically attached to the body of the woman pregnant with it, and anti-choicers aren't entitled to decree legally that they are and thereby naturally to control the sex organs of others against the will, conscience, and freedom of religion and freedom from rape of those others. It is the anti-choicers who are behaving as if they are committed to man-made, self-serving entitlements on this. And that has nothing to do with Gosnell=monster, the OP.

 

[X Factor]

To support a woman's right to choose abortion late-term in cases where there is an imminent threat to the woman's life or major health functions or even in cases of serious fetal anomaly and severe fetal disability is not subscribing to the right to elective abortion at 8 months. The majority of the people here who suppose a woman's right to choose accept Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey as well as other SC decisions on the issue.

A woman's right to choose abortion is balanced by a doctor's right to decide whether or not to provide one, and that is constrained in responsible legal medical practice by concern for the health and life of the woman all the way to the end of a pregnancy. The later the abortion, the more dangerous it is, and a responsible doctor concerned for the life and health of the woman has to decide whether it would be safer for her to have a caesarian, an induced vaginal delivery, or an abortion.

Go look at the stats in Canada and states like Oregon without late-term bans. They are essentially the same as those places with late-term bans.

Gosnell was a totally irresponsible doctor whose clinic was unhygienic and who failed to follow many health regulations as well as state laws related to late-term abortion long before the monstrous crimes for which he was finally arrested. And if the state government had properly followed up on reports about his clinic, inspected it, and taken action, the way it was publicly expected and paid to do, Gosnell would have been out of business years before he did the crimes for which he was arrest. What does that tell you, a conservative, about state government?

I notice not one thing you posted here had anything to do with the health or safety of the pre born (or the new born life Gosnell snuffed out for that matter) which is exactly in line with who I understand you to be. Please spare me any feigned outrage about Gosnell.

 

[Henrin]

1) An embryo is not a child.

2) A pregnant woman is not a parent.

Use whatever terms you want. In the end, it hardly matters to the point at hand. To kill the unborn is not a behavior a loving person would do unless they were forced into it.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

There have been large cultures that allowed the killing of babies after birth (usually for a short period) at will or accepted it informally. It is just a tribal preference, where you draw the line.

This makes more sense than abortion.

 

[choiceone]

I notice not one thing you posted here had anything to do with the health or safety of the pre born (or the new born life Gosnell snuffed out for that matter) which is exactly in line with who I understand you to be. Please spare me any feigned outrage about Gosnell.

If a woman plans to carry her pregnancy to term, she should be concerned with the health of her embryo or fetus. If she doesn't, this is an extraneous concern. If a doctor performs an abortion in late pregnancy outside of the parameters set by state law in accord with Supreme Court decisions, it is a crime. And if a doctor intentionally kills a baby, i.e., someone who has been removed from the woman's body and is alive, that is murder. I am outraged by Gosnell because he performed abortions that were illegal in terms of the Supreme Court decisions and in fact not only did that but intentionally killed even one neonate, but also that he did not follow regulations for hygienic clinics and endangered women and ghoulishly kept aborted fetuses.

That you can't stand being engaged in an exchange of views with a person who basically holds the same view as the overwhelming majority of people in the Northeast US is apparent.

 

[choiceone]

Use whatever terms you want. In the end, it hardly matters to the point at hand. To kill the unborn is not a behavior a loving person would do unless they were forced into it.

I actually disagree completely. There are many situations in which a loving person might do so.

 

[choiceone]

This makes more sense than abortion.

I disagree. After birth, there is a new human being/person. Before birth, there isn't, and pregnancy can be dangerous for the woman and can come about through coercion.

Nonetheless, I understand why people engaged in infanticide. In some societies, there was no way to know that what was inside the woman was a serious fetal anomaly. In some, poverty was so extreme that having another child would cause the existing one to starve, but abortion was more dangerous than childbirth for the woman.

 

[X Factor]

If a woman plans to carry her pregnancy to term, she should be concerned with the health of her embryo or fetus. If she doesn't, this is an extraneous concern. If a doctor performs an abortion in late pregnancy outside of the parameters set by state law in accord with Supreme Court decisions, it is a crime. And if a doctor intentionally kills a baby, i.e., someone who has been removed from the woman's body and is alive, that is murder. I am outraged by Gosnell because he performed abortions that were illegal in terms of the Supreme Court decisions and in fact not only did that but intentionally killed even one neonate,but also that he did not follow regulations for hygienic clinics and endangered women and ghoulishly kept aborted fetuses.

And yet, despite your pretense, you don't say anything about him committing murder.

That you can't stand being engaged in an exchange of views with a person who basically holds the same view as the overwhelming majority of people in the Northeast US is apparent.

Really, the overwhelming majority of people support the choice to abort the baby right up until the moment of birth? You just told me in another thread that's what you believe. You are so full of it. Don't try to tell me you give a **** about a baby that just moments before you would have supported being carved to pieces. The only good fetus (one that's not a parasite) is a dismembered one.

 

[ChrisL]

I disagree. After birth, there is a new human being/person. Before birth, there isn't, and pregnancy can be dangerous for the woman and can come about through coercion.

Nonetheless, I understand why people engaged in infanticide. In some societies, there was no way to know that what was inside the woman was a serious fetal anomaly. In some, poverty was so extreme that having another child would cause the existing one to starve, but abortion was more dangerous than childbirth for the woman.

I think that is completely subjective.

 

[minnie616]

I think that is completely subjective.

A fetus has no Constitutional rights in the USA.
The unborn are not considered persons under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court rejected the fetal right to life in the Roe vs Wade decision.

 

[ChrisL]

A fetus has no Constitutional rights in the USA.
The unborn are not considered persons under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court rejected the fetal right to life in the Roe vs Wade decision.

That has nothing to do with it. Plenty of moms view their unborn children as PEOPLE.