A basic question for "pro-lifers" who agree to abortion in cases of rape-

That's correct. There is a solid argument that its a human at 21 weeks (the earliest premature baby to survive was born at 21 weeks), but how much earlier than 21 weeks does it become human? That question is wide open to debate.

 

There is a solid argument that it's a human being when it is born, whether that is at 21 weeks or 40 weeks.

 

So you believe that a woman who is raped and gets pregnant should be raped the rest of her life, by laws that force her to undergo the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.


Sorry but those who think the woman should suffer further injury and trauma because of what a man did to her are sick MONSTERS.

 

It's ALWAYS human. It becomes a human being at birth. Nouns and adjectives, so confusing for SOME.
It's viable after 22-23 weeks the legal cut off for abortions with later term abortions under special circumstances....and that isn't "wide open " to debate.

 

I disagree, birth is strictly related to location. Society does not determine human status based on location.

For a baby born at 36 weeks, what is the difference between that baby 1 minute before it is born and 1 minute after it is born? It is viable, there is no difference in its development or ability to survive, the only change is its location.

- - - Updated - - -

The same can be said of people who want to murder innocent people.

 

You are arguing the dictionary and current law, not the humanity of the baby. The law is not perfect and is sometimes grossly in error. Viability does not equate to humanity, as I have already posted in this thread.

 

So you agree ( you never denied it: So you believe that a woman who is raped and gets pregnant should be raped the rest of her life, by laws that force her to undergo the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.


Sorry but those who think the woman should suffer further injury and trauma because of what a man did to her are sick MONSTERS.



This forum is about abortion, not "murder of innocent people".... unless you can prove it's the same thing and nobody ever has.....

 

So you don't think a viable fetus is "humanity"....what?

 

As I wrote to your last statement of this :

A viable baby is a human being. That does not mean that it is not human if it is not viable.

Many people are not viable (Steven Hawking for example) but are still considered human.

 

You're STILL having trouble with nouns and adjectives.

It's ALWAYS human. ...from the second of conception it is HUMAN.
It is NOT a human until it is viable or born.

 

Irrelevant word play.

 

It 's "word play" to use words and their definitions correctly?!?!

No wonder you think an embryo is a baby ....LOL.....

 

Have never said they were.

Fine, then campaign for a limit at 21 weeks .. but we both know that will never be enough for pro-lifers.

 

Fine.....if that's your opinion. What about incest?

 

No, its irrelevant word play to intentionally focus on word definitions in order to avoid the actual topic of substance.

 

What about it? Incest is sexual activity between 2 closely related people, maybe consensual, maybe not, maybe between adults, maybe not.. If you mean a person rapes a close relative, then its still rape and my previous arguments are unchanged.

 

I know!!

It is a concession. If a woman is raped, everyone demands justice. Liberals don't like to punish real criminals, so we let them kill the baby in these cases. It kind of sucks for the baby, but the liberals are happy, the rapist is free to continue his crime spree, & the victim won't have to deal with the unwanted pregnancy.

Actually, i've given up. You guys can kill all the babies you want. ..just don't make me pay for it, or shove it in my face all the time. Kill them up to 2 yrs.. or bomb them like you do kids in gaza, or ship them to central america for a joke. You don't really give a $hit about kids, just want to use them as political pawns, like you do the central american kids & the gaza schools.

Here's my deal:
1. You can kill all the babies you want, but you also have to kill convicted murderers... IOW, you have to support the death penalty. Deal?

No? You can't kill evil people who have murdered other people, but have no problem killing an innocent baby who has done nothing wrong? I just can't get leftist logic...

 

Yes I know, but it does further highlight how immature his responses are.

 

The "issue" is biologically dependent and socially dependent which obviously from your responses shows you don't have a clue about.

So what you are advocating then is not the equal protection for the fetus but granting a fetus rights that no other person has .. in other words you want the fetus to be a "super" person .. until it is born that is, then you quite happily remove those "super" rights. Add to this that you want to remove rights from a pregnant woman until she gives birth and then return them to her .. so the question is why are you so free and easy with other peoples rights?

 

wordplay - the witty exploitation of the meanings and ambiguities of words, especially in puns.

Nothing witty about it
No ambiguities about what the correct terminology is
No exploitation of what the correct terminology means

So it would seem that you cast about meaningless words in order to detract from your own inability to use the correct terminology in a debate .. that is being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

To ignore the actual medical facts of the matter is just plain dishonesty.

 

Rights between 2 individuals are always balanced and sometimes limited by necessity. Your right to speak is balanced by my right to not be harmed by your speech (slander, or the classic yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire).

Because of the physical relationship between the baby and the mother, the mothers freedoms are limited to prevent harm to the baby. But that's not unusual at all, a mother can be punished for taking drugs or getting drunk while pregnant, leaving her baby in a car on a hot day, etc.

 

What a pile of BS.

You guys can kill all the babies you want - Firstly I have never killed anyone let alone a baby or a fetus, so that accusation fails. Secondly you don't pay for it. Thirdly it is the vast majority of pro-lifers who support deporting kids back to Mexico etc where they have a 50% more chance of dying, even though the pro-life mission statement is to protect ALL humankind and INNOCENT life . .how hypocritical of them.

I have absolutely no issue with the death penalty if there is un-refutable evidence.

got to love the way pro-lifers rely on hasty generalizations and ad hominem

 

Correct .. so please explain how no other person has the right to use another persons body to sustain their own life, and yet you want to grant that right to the fetus (a person in your opinion) and then remove that right upon it's birth, and at the same time remove a woman's right to body autonomy while she is pregnant but allow her to have it back upon the birth?

There is only a relationship if both parties consent to that relationship, if one is being forced to maintain the relationship then it is by it's nature coercive.

Can you please provide any convictions of women for damage caused to a fetus due to their addictions?

False equivalence fallacy.

---------------

You pro-lifers really don't understand the can of worms you will open if it ever comes to pass that a zef is considered a person from conception.

 

No, it's using the correct words to prove a point you don't agree with.


I see you don't mind if an 11 year old is raped by daddy/brother/uncle/priest.......she still must be PUNISHED for the rest of her life for THEIR crime by being forced to give birth....and you call yourself human ?!?!

 

More irrelevant word play and distraction.

Why don't you address the subject of the OP? Oh, that's right, you don't have anything meaningful to say.