What's really wrong with giving up a kid for adoption? Maybe you realize that someone else could give the kid a better life. It certainly seems more humane than killing, but I guess it's all perspective. Too bad we can't ask the fetus.
I do think we should cut some of the red tape in adoption to ensure that kids get into a family quick rather than becoming stuck in an orphanage or, even worse, foster homes. I don't see why it's terrible. Someone doesn't feel they can raise a kid. Someone else wants to raise a child but can't have one or refuses to go through birthing. The kid wins by being raised by someone who we know really wants a shot at parenthood vs. someone who does not.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Where are you from? I’d like to know where babies are given away like puppies. Do they keep them piled in a big cardboard box with “free” spray painted across the front? Even if unwanted babies were given away in that manner (which they obviously are not in the United States) I would rather live than die. People give their children up for adoption because they care about the life of the child. I don’t see how anyone could kill their own baby, especially for reasons of convenience.

So your saying that consciousness equals life. If so, anyone that gets knocked unconscious is fair game for being killed? Say in a car accident. A few people get knocked unconscious; they can then be killed. Or say someone is in a temporary coma. Hmmm…very interesting. LOL!

Very insightful stuff. Well said. LOL! Wow…Where do I start? By your definition, “fully mature” means capable of surviving on its own and having consciousness. A one year old baby cannot survive on its own, so can it still be aborted? Even a 2, 3, or 4 year old child cannot survive on their own. I guess by your definition they can still be killed off. I suppose people with certain special needs are also still eligible to be aborted. They may have consciousness, but they cannot survive on their own. So technically they are not alive by your definition.

So, when does consciousness occur? And when can a person survive on their own? You must know these exact times, otherwise you risk murdering someone, by your definition.


If you call responsibility murdering your unborn baby, then abortion is very responsible.




Wait a second! Didn’t you just say that abortion is RESPONSIBLE! Now you’re saying it’s IRRESPONSIBLE. Which is it?

By the way, you’re right. Not all birth control is 100% effective. So you must take that into consideration when having sex. You just might create another life. With sex comes responsibility.


So when do children become children? Parents must know this exact time so that they know when to start taking care of them. LOL.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there is a way for families who can't have children to raise one. I just don't see how any sane person could give up their kid.

Don't see how its really caring about them to give them up to fate and never know if they were raised properly. Better to not let them be born (not murder).

All of your examples are of full fledged human beings going through temporary unconsciousness. In all examples, the brain is still functioning. Much different scenario than a fetus or a corpse.

They have a human consciousness.

Exactly. There needs to be a big definitive study by hundreds of medical doctors to determine exactly when that barrier is crossed and make laws accordingly.

Both are examples of someone taking care of their own situations. One is just more responsible than the other. Sorta like taking your rented movie back on time or paying late charges. Both got your movie back like it was supposed to be, one cost ya more in the end and was a little less responsible.

And abortion is still a consideration for the woman.

Fate huh. It’s not like we are attaching them to a parachute and dropping them out of a cargo plane, like seeds in the wind. There is a system for adopting children, and potential parents go through a rigorous screening process to attempt to weed out the people that are not qualified for one reason or another. Most of these children go to deserving and loving parents.


How do you know it’s NOT MURDER, when you haven’t told us when life begins??? You’ve told us your 3 criteria for life, but when does it happen. If you don’t know then you could be murdering children. You gotta give us a specific time!!!


Your definition of life included three criteria to be met:
1) One must have consciousness
2) One must be able to survive on their own
3) One must not resemble a blob

If you need all three to be considered alive then infants, toddlers, and people with certain special needs are not alive by your definition and can still be killed, because they can’t survive on their own. You could also argue that morbidly obese people resemble a blob, and could be aborted as well. The major problem with your argument is that you have not provided that very important instant when a human becomes “alive”. Is it at fertilization, 1st week, 9th week, 26th week, 40th week??? If you do not know the exact time then you must stop aborting children because you may be murdering them, by your definition. I believe life begins at fertilization. I never have to worry about whether or not another human being is murdered and another human life is brought into the world just as nature designed.



Why don’t you take the initiative and start organizing the study. Start calling some doctors and propose your idea. They will laugh and then discuss with you the medical, ethical, and financial issues with such a ridiculous experiment.



Wow! Great example. LOL. If only the consequences of an abortion were merely paying a $1 or $2 late fee. The consequence of abortion is that a human being ceases to live. In your movie rental example, the movie makes it back to the store in both scenarios, while in the abortion issue the ending for each scenario is quite different. Life vs. Death is a wee bit different than returning a movie a day late. Abortion = irresponsibility, especially given the alternatives.

Abortion is a lawful act if performed by a certified person, so yet again you have proven nothing.

It would sure be helpful if you can mention a part of the Bible.

Abortion is most certainly bad. I am simply saying the fetus is inside another person, it is that persons right to choose to pursue its development or abort it. Fundimental rights trump the criminal code, so suggesting that abortion is murder over and over will get you no where.

Cocaine use, rape and murder are no doubt bad and should be stopped.

In a perfect world, everyone would take responsibility for everything. If you want to pretend to live in that world go ahead, sit there and cry about it, you won't get very far. Abortion is a fundimental right, so what if its the easy way out, you cannot force people to do things you way.

You are the proponent of irresponsibility and cowardice. Not everyone that has a child can take care of it. If abortion were to be banned then there would be greater stress on social services to keep the children safe and comfortable until they can be adopted, if ever. If tax payers want to take responsibility for the consquences of banning abortion, then they should be willing to pay more taxes to support the greater amounts of children in social services. If you ask a right-winger though, they will take their tax cut over some child in social services any day.

That is a novel idea, but its not always possible and not always desired.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

There is no need to ask the fetus; one of the few duties of the state is to protect life, even life that cannot communicate its own wishes. A fetus yearns to become a fully functional lifeform, and the state should protect it from being killed by women who feel they don't want to let them live.

I fully agree. Foster homes require far less red tape than adoption, it's crazy.

Actually, protecting life is not the duty of the state. If that was the states duty, there would be no wars, no killing of animals for human consumption, no capitol punishment and no state-sponsored assassinations. The state does not view all living things equally, therefore, its duty is to protect what it feels has value.

Anyway you feel, the government is bound by the constitution to protect peoples fundimental rights.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

A fetus does not yearn for anything. It has no consciousness. I hate all the propaganda ads you see with fetuses saying "don't kill me mommy, I love you".

Still, you never know how they are doing.

I was just trying to make a point with those examples. Criteria #1 (consciousness) is pretty much all you need.

Its alive no doubt...just as cancer is alive. Its not a living individual human being however. It has NO consciousness at conception.

Not really some ridiculous study. If we are going to have laws on the subject, the government better darn sure have it stated when a life begins.

No, a fetus ceases continuing to grow into a human being.

Of course the scales and consequences are different. It was merely an example. In both situations, the person took care of their responsiblity (movie return/ pregnancy). You wish to take that responsiblity away.

Wars are necesary to protect life for our own protection. It is a necesary aspect of our own survival. If we just sat around after Japan attacked us in WW2, how can you say that the government was protecting life. Your argument is laughable.

The death penatly is used as a deterrant for those who brutally murder other people. Those who commit such acts forfeit their own right to live.

A fetus has done nothing wrong, it just wants to live and to grow to be a fully grown human. The state should provide for it's protection over a woman's right to privacy. The fact that a few SC justices thought a right to privacy is more important than the right to life according to the Constitution is just absurd.

Sounds like you’re back peddling.


SO WHEN DOES IT HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS???!!! Quit dodging the question. If you are so convinced that abortion is not murder, then prove that it’s not.



Don’t you think that we should know that before any abortion? There’s that whole murder problem again.

Come on, are you kidding. You just said that a fetus is “NO DOUBT ALIVE”. When a male and female have sex and an egg and sperm join to become a human embryo; this is a HUMAN embryo, which becomes a human fetus, which becomes a human infant, child, adolescent, adult, elderly human, etc. These are all stages of a HUMAN being. Two chickens mate to create a chicken fetus, and bears mate to create a bear fetus. It’s hilarious when you write “a fetus ceases to continue to grow”. What do you think causes that HUMAN fetus to stop growing? Well, a physician hacks it up into small pieces and sucks it out. There is no magic wand that mysteriously “stops the fetus from growing” as you so naively state.



Apparently, you just believe in different levels or “responsibility”. Then what is your definition of “irresponsibility”, and give me an example of irresponsibility.



The initial statement pertained to murder as it relates to a human fetus. I think it’s interesting that 32 states have written laws that impose punishment or additional punishment on an individual that murders a pregnant woman or causes a pregnant woman to miscarry. It merely shows that many states believe that the fetus has significant worth. Enough to call it murder of another individual.

As far as the Bible goes. Start with these 2 verses, and I can post more if need be.

Psalm 139:4 emphasizes God's continuity of care, saying that this reaches back into the womb, and that God was concerned for the individual while his body was being formed. The Bible gives examples of this process in action as can be seen when God 'called' Isaiah and Jeremiah and John the Baptist before they were born.

Exodus 21:22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (also interpreted as miscarriage) but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.
This situation reveals that a fine is the consequence for accidentally causing a woman to miscarry. The passage doesn’t elaborate on the topic of intentionally causing a woman to miscarry. I can only assume that the consequence would be much worse.


You and I are very different. If something is “most certainly bad”, I do not support it and I cannot sit idly by and watch it continue. It is not a fundamental right to kill another human being. You have already stated in previous posts that human life begins at conception. If so then abortion is murder.

So if abortion is “most certainly bad”, as you state, then how does it differ from cocaine use, rape, and murder. Which you also state is “no doubt, bad”?

Please explain why you think abortion is “most certainly bad”?


I live in an imperfect world, but strive towards perfection. We can’t be perfect but you should work in that direction vs. imperfection. Again, we are very different.


So allowing babies to live is a show of irresponsibility and cowardice? It doesn’t surprise me to see you post that. You obviously have a very low regard for human life. After all, you were the one who posted that you didn’t care if anything lives or dies, as long as it dies peacefully.
Again, we are very different. If paying higher taxes means that the murder of the innocent stops, then bring on the taxes. I agree, more babies will be a stress on the social services. I’m sure that will be recognized by their HR departments and additional employees will be added. It’s interesting your reasons for continued abortion were based on inconvenience of social workers and money. You mention nothing about the life of the baby.