talloulou said:
As far as your concern over the population I can only tell you that we have a variety of methods of "birth control" but abortion isn't one of them.
OH, YES, IT IS. Abortion is not "fertilization control" because it doesn't affect the number of them that occur; it is not "conception control" because it doesn't affect the number of them that occur; --and it is not "pregnancy control" because it doesn't affect the number of them that occur. But
it can indeed control the number of births that occur!
talloulou said:
In my opinion ALL HUMANS that are without major defect should be afforded the right to life as soon as their presence is known. The same "pass" that is given to the newborn should be given to the unborn ...
We
are aware of your irrational prejudice in this matter. And you continue to fail to answer the question, "
Why must certain potentials be fulfilled, and not others?"
talloulou said:
... especially since modern technology has given us 3D and even 4D pictures of the life in the womb we now know far too much to contine pretending we aren't taking human lives with each and every abortion. We don't kill the homeless to solve population problems and there is no other group of humans I can imagine anyone advocating we do away with in order to solve the population problem.
That's because there are no other
large groups of humans which are so easily proved, in Scientific Fact, to be no more than mere animals. Meanwhile:
talloulou said:
It is quite reasonable to argue that a being on life support who will never be capable of much of a life and has no brain waves should be terminated.
This is not a large group, although they are equally human and equally merely animal. Killing them all would hardly make a dent in the population problem. And you are still arguing that you want certain potentials to be fulfilled, without saying why it is important
or even necessary.
talloulou said:
There is no good reason not to afford the unborn that we can see and document quite adequately now the same protections as the newborn.
FALSE. Preventing a Malthusian Catastrophe, which would kill up to 99% of the population,
including those you are wanting to protect, is indeed a good reason. You would sacrifice 99% of all
actual persons, just because you want 50% more
potential persons to become actualized each year? (I just saw a statistic that in 1995, 35% of pregnancies were aborted worldwide. If I round that down to 1/3, then 2/3 of pregnancies resulted in births, and that 1/3 is 50% of the 2/3.)
talloulou said:
And as far as the my body my choice goes that's just a bunch of rot.
FALSE. It is Accepted Reality with respect to every sort of ordinary parasite on the planet. And it is Scientific Fact that an unborn human exists parasitically. Therefore, to make an exception in this matter, prejudicially favoring unborn humans, actual animals they are, is to violate Accepted Reality, Scientific Fact,
and the dignity of actual persons, all for the sake of potentials that you have yet to explain why they
must be fulfilled!
talloulou said:
Unless a woman was raped the new human life she carries is a life she herself helped create.
So? You can help create fly lives by putting your organic garbage outside in unsealed containers. That doesn't mean either the new human lives or the new fly lives deserve to stay alive. Go ahead! Explain to us why those new human lives deserve to stay alive --and
especially explain to us why that argument doesn't apply to those exactly-equally-animal new fly lives.
talloulou said:
The government isn't responsible for doing that to her and can't be blamed for taking her resources against her will when in fact her body is using it's resources to nourish the new human that her body helped created.
Are you saying that "her body" deserves more control over her life than her mind? Shall we use that as an excuse to lobotomize all female pro-lifers, and use them as breeders? In spite of all the precedents that have been set to help grant minds power over Mindless Natural Biology? Don't be so utterly ridiculous, please!
talloulou said:
There is "NO ONE" taking anything from her at all.
TRUE. Just as it is exactly-as-true that an animal is parasitically taking things from her.
talloulou said:
And if she were to claim {{snipped}}
UNNECESSARY. The claim of being parasitized by an animal is Scientifically Valid, and is sufficient for removal of that animal, in every single case, including human animals (since abortion is legal).
talloulou said:
Women claim that it isn't fair that they loose their body parts!
The correct word is "resources", not "parts". A pregnant woman keeps all her parts, but loses vitamins, minerals, fuel, water, oxygen, and so on --and has waste products dumped into her bloodstream in exchange for them. Ugh.
talloulou said:
Well there is nothing else that compares with pregnancy really ...
FALSE. Parasitism compares rather closely.
talloulou said:
... and women are the ones who get pregnant so there is nothing to be done about "fair." But to compare it to someone stealing your kidney or any other ridiculous analogy is absurd.
And I do not make that particular comparison, as explained above.
talloulou said:
The life she carries in her womb is her responsibility since she is the only one who can care for it until a later date.
TRUE. But this does not define how she must deal with that responsibility. Especially since Mindless Natural Biology may have chosen it for her, against her will.