If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

Maybe you should ask choicers what is wrong with regular babies. If it is perfectly okay for any unborn baby to be terminated because someone else "chooses" it, why would it be the slightest bit wrong to target certain types of babies?

Obviously choicers believe the unborn fetus does not have the slightest right to his own life. Since it all hinges on whether the woman "wants" the baby, the case for protecting certain groups of unborn babies from being forcefully terminated is fairly weak. Pro-choicers have done such a good job arguing how much better an abortion is than child birth, it would be akward for them to try to turn around and explain why forced abortions would be so bad.

So just for the sake of hypothetical argument, let's suppose I actually did want to terminate interracial babies. From the point of view of pro-lifers, I could would not really be any worse than the pro-choicers (at least I believe abortions are wrong on the other babies). And from the point of view of pro-choicers, I would not be any worse than the pro-lifers, who "want to take the choice away from the woman". Because according to the pro-choicers, the fetus does not matter, only the mother. Choicers would be very inconsistent to argue otherwise in this situation. Therefore, if hypothetically I did hold this position, it would really be a rather moderate position.

 

Forced sterilization is a violation of human rights, right up there with abortion. Unacceptable in a free society.

- - - Updated - - -

Forced sterilization is a violation of human rights, right up there with abortion. Unacceptable in a free society.

 

Nothing wrong with Pro-Choicers position ...they put the decision in the hands of the only one who matters , the pregnant woman....and SURPRISE, it isn't YOU....

 

If someone is insulted by having a mirror placed before them .. than so be it.

The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of lifers refer to the single cell at conception as a baby.

This is fallacy and should be called out for what it is.

 

Why give ground at all? Plus, I tend to believe that interracial babies ARE regular babies, just so you know.

 

Did someone say that in this thread? If so, please link to the post. Otherwise, you are at best flailing wildly at a strawman and at worst being deliberately misleading.

 

You must be really new to this debate. In this thread .. and numerous other abortion threads there are many lifers who claim that the single cell at conception is a "baby" "living human" and so on.

Allie, Churchmouse, Right to life, are some of the folks that make this claim.


This quote is from this thread but there are numerous others posts I can pull up for you by the folks mentioned above where we are directly discussing the single cell at conception.

What RTL means by "the innocent life created" "the child" and so forth is the single cell at conception.

Please feel free to ask for other posts because can pull up many from the recent past where this topic is being discussed directly.

You should also be aware that many lifers want certain forms of contraception banned "because" they believe the single cell at conception is a "baby".

 

Its interesting interracial babies were are targeted for population control. Myself, I believe in abortion, for anyone who wants it, there should be that choice there, but the choice should have nothing to do with the race.

 

And yet, you would rather that interracial fetuses be aborted than no fetuses at all.

 

You can check my join date if you are unsure as to whether or not I'm new to this discussion.

Further, can abortions occur to the single celled organism? Of course not given that by the time a mother even knows that she is pregnant (and thus elect to have an abortion), the life form growing in her womb has progressed in development far beyond a single celled organism. Thus, in the quote you referred in which RightToLife mentioned "not to kill the innocent life...," the context demands that we are talking about more than a single celled organism.

Regardless, for you to take wild swings at statements not uttered in this thread at best makes you look foolish and at worst incompetent at deception. Try to focus in this thread on what is said in this thread. If you find statements elsewhere that you consider to be ridiculous, then respond to them elsewhere or risk appearing ridiculous yourself.

 

Don't they in China?

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/

 

I thought you were cool with aborting interracial fetuses?

 

And yet, if I support abortions in some situations, I am accused by other choicers of being inconsistent. Fugazi expects me to hold all human life to the same standard, otherwise I am a hypocrite supposedly. So which it ?? Do you want me to uphold the value of all human life, or do you want me to make exceptions in certain situations? Or do you just want to criticise my position either way?

 

The problem is that in many cases women are simply given low-dose birth control pills and fail to properly follow the instructions that the pills need to be taken 12 hours before sexual intercourse to be effective. This is what leads to pregnancy. And again, most of these women are not using condoms.

The problem is not that contraceptives are not effective. The problem is that women who are engaging in extra-marital sexual relations fail to properly use the contraceptives available to them. A woman can't just take a low dose pill once a week and expect it to protect her from pregnancy.

 

The problem is that birth control sometimes fails. The most effective birth control claims a 98% effectiveness rate. That means 2 women get pregnant every year using that birth control. That adds up to a lot of unplanned pregnancies. Once again, you want to BLAME women for unplanned pregnancies, when men aren't doing their share to prevent them. BLAME women because the birth control fails.

 

WHY do you insist you are the ruler of what women do or don't do???


BTW for intersted parties, the bolded BLUE above are MY words NOT Anders, OK????

 

I know what RTL means because I have debated RTL on this specific issue. Clearly, you are misguided.

Second .. if you do not realize that the abortion debate for many lifers begins at the single cell .. you are pretty much out of the loop on this debate.

 

Not what I said at all, though I see how it could be taken that way. What I meant to say that it doesn't matter the race. The choice shouldn't be about race at all. It doesn't play a factor in abortion.

 

and you know this for a fact, how? or is it just more assumption as usual.

Men are twice as likely to be unfaithful to their wives.

 

Neither should the choice be about whether or not the baby has passed through the birth canal. It shouldn't play a factor at all.

 

In most pro-choicers cases it doesn't .. though your hyperbole would seem to say to the ill informed that it is, however to those who know you are the only one who is ill informed.

It really isn't that hard to understand, the fetus, under law, has no rights as a person .. scientifically it is not a person, it is a potential person, but does not meet any of the criteria for an independent sentient person. Until such time that it can be independent of the womb it is purely the choice of the mother what happens .. you may screech all you like about it, but until you and the other pro-lifers can come up with some peer reviewed, scientific accepted evidence that the majority of a people in a democratic nation accept, you will never change it.

 

people in this thread seem to confuse legal and acceptable. the two are different. if murder was acceptable, it would happen more. fact.

 

What I expect is that a born person would be supported and not killed off just because they are "retarded" .. A fetus is an entirely different thing, it is only pro-lifers who try to make ties with an unborn fetus and a born child.

 

There is no confusion, legally its ok and its only not acceptable to the pro-life side .. acceptablility de[pends on your position as regard the actual status of the fetus . .for pro-life it should have rights and be declared a person from conception, for pro-choice that is not the case, it is more acceptable to let the woman have the choice.