Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
What else comes out? Animal? Plant?
What you write qualifies as an "ostrich" viewpoint. You confirm this by your use of the weasel words believe, opinion, and thought.galenrox said:You do know that it's not a fact that a fetus is a child, right? There is no consensus on whether a fetus is alive or not, and thus it's a matter of opinion. And thus, if you DON'T believe that a fetus is a child, like the MAJORITY of America, then you don't see any problem with abortion.
I understand your position, and I'd be rabidly opposed to abortion if I thought a fetus was a child, but just based on the fact that we know that the rapist, the thief, and the murderer are human lives, the crossover logic just simply doesn't exist.
DHard3006 said:Why do people that defend abortion get so mad when people say they have a right to defend themselves against rape, robbery, and murder? Why is killing a person that is going to rape, rob, or murder you so wrong when the defenders of abortion chant killing an unborn child is ok? Why is killing an unborn child ok and killing a convicted murderer wrong?
The question was how do you defend killing an unborn child and then defend not allowing people to defend themselves against criminals or executing convicted criminals?Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Further, the reasoning for each is completely divorced from each other.
So what happens when two people conceive a child by sexual intercourse? Does anything other then a child come out?Technocratic_Utilitarian said:An animal comes out, yes. Humans are primates, primates are animals, therefore, (logically) an animal must come out.
What else comes out?Kandahar said:It couldn't be that most people simply don't agree with your conclusion that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a child.
Is not this the same reason the courts use to not execute insane people? You know insane people are not aware of what they are doing.Kandahar said:I double-majored in biology and psychology. And there is NO evidence - from either of those fields - that leads me to believe that a fetus has any kind of self-awareness.
In your case, a vegetable came out.....DHard3006 said:What else comes out? Animal? Plant?
Well gee I can say the same for your argument.madcow863 said:is not a valid argument.
Do criminals use this logic when they murder some one for money of out of rage?madcow863 said:Also, if you grant a fetus a right to life, then you destroy the mother who carries it's right to make decisions for themselves and their own body.
Oh golly gee insults from a person rolling for child. LMFAO!UtahBill said:In your case, a vegetable came out.....
Now the question was asked what about insane people after a defender of killing unborn children said because they are not aware. Care to address this or just keep trying to disrupt the post?UtahBill said:A criminal is a physically mature sentient creature who chooses to do wrong,
Another lame ass attempt to change the topic! LMFAO!UtahBill said:You really like the "defenders of" line don't you? Please, get a new line, this one is getting old
As Justice Blackmun wote in Roe v. Wade (paraphrased), if the occupant of the womb is a living human, then it would be entitled to the protections of the fourteenth amendment. He went on to write that the court need not 'speculate' on the answer to the question of when life begins.Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Why are people arguing if the fetus is a child? Of course it is. It doesn't matter one bit regardless of its humanity or child-nature. Not calling it a child is a silly notion that's alltogether pointless anyway. OF course the doctors are correct. That's hardly in dispute among most people; that's no major philosophical question. Even braindead individuals are human--child or otherwise adult.
And another dumbass thread originated by you should receive what? intelligent discourse? You try to connect an apple and an orange and we should respect your intelligence? you want civil responses to your inane input, but accuse others or "rolling"? Most of your input here is just so much mental masturbation, very repetitive in nature, and only a limited variation in strokes.DHard3006 said:Oh golly gee insults from a person rolling for child. LMFAO!
What does it say about keeping it civil? I guess you missed that.
Now the question was asked what about insane people after a defender of killing unborn children said because they are not aware. Care to address this or just keep trying to disrupt the post?
Another lame ass attempt to change the topic! LMFAO!
Hey hateful bigot you got nothing to say so now you will just disrupt the thread!UtahBill said:But I suppose that you are one of the "lonely" and don't have much choice.
With respect to your first paragraph, what has the "agreement" of most people to do with concepts which they may not understand. Should the validity of biological facts be determined on the basis of their popularity?Kandahar said:Gee, I don't know. I guess 60% of Americans just have a soft spot for the murder of innocents. It couldn't be that most people simply don't agree with your conclusion that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a child. :roll:
I double-majored in biology and psychology. And there is NO evidence - from either of those fields - that leads me to believe that a fetus has any kind of self-awareness.
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.tecoyah said:I could have sworn I read this thread.....and the other 12 just like it.
They all say the same freakin thing....I am right, You are wrong....and here is the evidence to back me up. Gimme a break....its all based on Emotion or Dogma, and No One will convince any one else to change stance on this issue.
What a complete waste of time. Much like this post will prove in say....four replys or less.
Scotus says so, and until Scotus reverses the decison, it is so.Fantasea said:Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.
Are you able to provide any?
Fantasea said:Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.
Are you able to provide any?
I asked for factual support; you respond with political support. Apple/Orange? Yes, I would say so.UtahBill said:Scotus says so, and until Scotus reverses the decison, it is so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.
Are you able to provide any?
I don't like abortion, but I also have no say. I am not a woman, and if any decision should be left to the women, this is one.
I shall do what you ask.tecoyah said:This will be my last contribution to this thread....unless Fantasea decides to actually read the article I have linked to the bottom of this post. The excerpt I have provided is but a piece of the quagmire we call "The Abortion Debate", and I have placed it here merely to show my belief in this mess.As I do not wish to rehash the Religious, or "Soul" aspect of the issue, if only because there is no possible way to define what a soul is, let alone when we get one.
I simply ask that you read this document....with an open mind.
Fantasea said:I shall do what you ask.
In the meantime, however, I suggest that you read the author's biography. What it reveals will help you to understand to understand how and why he reaches some of his conclusions.
You will find one version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
Fantasea said:With respect to your first paragraph, what has the "agreement" of most people to do with concepts which they may not understand. Should the validity of biological facts be determined on the basis of their popularity?
Fantasea said:With respect to your second paragraph, what did your biology text reveal about the product of human conception? Does human life begin at conception? Are the zygote, embryo, and fetus simply the names given to an unborn child to denote chronology? If not, what is it that these names do signify?
Fantasea said:What effect, if any has the presence or absence of what you call 'self-awareness' on the continuum of human life which commences at conception and continues seamlessly through many identifiable stages, pre-birth and post-birth,until natural death in old age unless pre-mature death occurs? Bear in mind that there are numerous occasions between conception and old age at which self-awareness may not be present.
I read the entire piece and the additional information at the several links.tecoyah said:Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.
Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.
By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.
Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible. [/I]
[/B]
http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml
Please find the article...in its entirety in the link above^^^^^
Fantasea said:I asked for factual support; you respond with political support. Apple/Orange? Yes, I would say so.
Care to try again?
Some interesting reading on the lead up to Roe v. Wade that gives rise to head scratching:
http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/SavageLATimes091405.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?