ILikeDubyah
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Phx
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
ILikeDubyah said:Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!
ILikeDubyah said:Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!
With regards to animal lives and human lives, hypocrisy doesn't know any liberal/conservative boundaries.ILikeDubyah said:Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights,
No, I haven't. But Neal Horsley apparently got consent from a mule.HTColeman said:Killing a baby does not involve consent of the baby. BTW, would you really try to get the consent of an animal?
HTColeman said:Killing a baby does not involve consent of the baby.
HTColeman said:BTW, would you really try to get the consent of an animal?
alex said:That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.
Exactly my point. An animal cannot consent to harming it and it is life to itself. Therefore, hurting an animal is wrong. Just as hurting a living baby is wrong.
ILikeDubyah said:Also....Your hand is not alive, it depends on your body to survive, so why don't you cut that off too.
alex said:That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.
IndiConservative said:Science defines single cell organism's as life. a ferlized egg cell is life.
IndiConservative said:you also completely depend on plants and animals to survive and yet you havent asked there permission either.
ILikeDubyah said:Point taken, Freedom. What I meant to say was that Yes, If you're a woman & you have an egg inside of you, yes, that is a part of you. Now, if that egg becomes fertilized, it is no longer just a part of you, but a part of someone else, and is now it's own being. Life is life, no matter how you look at it, if you were to cut off your hand, you'd be killing all of the LIVING individual cells that were once a part of you. If you abort a pregnancy, you are killing LIVING cells. (Not only living cells, but a completely seperate organism.) When you get the flu, your body plays HOST to the virus that got inside of you, and the virus stays until it can no longer survive inside of you. That being said, it may be your body, but once the egg is fertilized , it is no longer a part of you, your body is once again playing HOST. Better life decisions by the moronic masses would make it so that there wouldn't even be a debate here.
alex said:If someone chooses to cut off their hand it is their business, not yours, just as pregnancy is no one else's business but the woman's. If a pregnant woman ceases to exist so does the fetus, so that fetus is not its own being.
It is dependant on the woman and cannot survive without that woman's aid. The flu analogy is silly. If I am host to the flu then I have the choice to try to get rid of it. If a woman is pregnant she also has that choice.
HTColeman said:This is incomplete logic, the fetus dies because the woman is the host. This does not mean that it is not its own being, it just depends on the woman to survive.
HTColeman said:The flu analogy was meant to point out that the fetus is not like a hand, it is a being that the woman hosts in her body. If she chooses to have an abortion, she is killing the baby. If she chose to get rid of the flu, she would have to kill the virus. It just so happens that babies are a lot more valuable than viruses.
alex said:I was defending my position that a fetus is not a being to itself. If it was, then it could survive without a host. With this logic, it can be said that a liver is a being to itself and it is not. It is a part of a whole person who is a being. A fetus cannot survive in any other environment except a woman's womb. It is not a completely separate organism until it can survive without the host.
The right of a woman to choose is valuable. Take it away and that takes away basic rights of liberty.
alex said:Those single celled organisms that science calls life are life to themselves. They do not depend on a host to survive. A fetus requires a host and if that host decides to terminate what is inside of her, that is her choice.
This does not make consistent sense. A woman does not require the aid of the fetus to survive.
HTColeman said:Parasites cannot survive without hosts, at least not for long.
HTColeman said:Basic rights like life?
satanloveslibs said:So you believe that it is ok to abort a fetus because it is dependent on the mother and so you think that it is ok to kill it because of that, well... isn't the baby, after it is born, still dependant on the mother. Trust me, a one day old infant can not take care of itself. So then, according to you, it would be ok to kill it?
satanloveslibs said:I'm sorry, but I feel a child's life is a hell of a lot more important than more taxes!
alex said:A one day old baby is not completely dependant on the mother. The mother does not have to care for it at all times. She does not have to provide nurishment from her own body for it to live. Are one year old babies who are taken from their mothers required to have the mother to survive? No, they can be taken care of by someone else. When the fetus is inside of her, it is COMPLETELY dependant on her. It cannot survive without her. One day old babies can survive without their mother. They are born so therefore they are now a separate entity from her. They are their own person.
alex said:Your right, it is. But a fetus is not a child.
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?