![]() |
|
|
|||
|
[quote=Sharon Tate;451153]A baby does not have to live with, or even see it's mother after birth in order to survive.
I did not say it did, however a baby is till not independant. It does not use her body to survive, it is very much independant FROM the mother. I never said it needed the mother after birth, however it is STILL not independant. Your reason for killing life inside the womb because it relies on you still is not fair. A baby still needs someone to rely on outside the womb. Although it relies on people to feed it and nourish it, it no longer uses another persons body to sustain life. Wrong they are using their bodies to help that child to survive. When they change that child, feed that child, or whatever they are using their bodies. They just don't say this is an inconvience I will kill this child. |
| Sponsored Links |
| Red Cross - Donate Today Save the Rainforest |
|
|||
|
Quote:
I am not ignoring anything the child is still not independant a point that you seem to be ignoring. |
|
|||
|
There is no need for sarcasm, I am quite frankly disappointed in you, there is no need for rudeness. I know you probably get frustrated with me, as I you but this is still no excuse to be rude. You know very well I can read I have been debating this topic with you for quite a while now. Can you not grasp the fact that a baby is still not independant wether it needs it mother or not. To be independant means to be able to survive on your own without help a baby cannot do this.
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
My teenager boys aren't independent! But the day is soon coming..... |
|
|||
|
I would never attempt to justify the act of abortion. Personally, I find it reprehensible and as wicked a sin as there is. But I am still pro-choice and IMO, there is justification for allowing a woman to choose. In fact, more so than there is justification to not allow her to choose.
It's pretty simple. As a general rule, I don't support any laws that restrict an individual from doing anything that doesn't intrude on the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of another. And therein lies the conflict of abortion. If I support a law forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth, I'm violating this rule. But also, the argument can be made that allowing her to abort violates the rule too, because it intrudes on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of her unborn child. However, this argument is flawed because allowing her to abort requires no law whatsoever. And even if we remove that distinction, we are still left with a conflict. Whose rights trump whose? And in this case, I just can't see how the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the unborn can possibly supercede that of the already born. Or to put it another way, if an ignorant, life-hating wh ore wants to kill her own unborn baby, it's between her, her conscience, and her god. Leave me out of it. Last edited by manifold; 03-11-2008 at 11:00 AM. |
|
||||
|
get used to it shadowman, sharon won't prove you wrong but she will say you are stupid. Since the fetus can't survive on its own, apparently it is ok to kill it. So what about every other person that can't survive on their own. Should a mother have a right to murder her mentally retarded child just because it can't live on its own?
__________________
"Your old road is Rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin'." "There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'." -Bob Dylan, greatest singer/songwriter ever to live. |
|
||||
|
"yes, a mother should be able to kill her child whether its in or out of her womb, no matter how old or how healthy. newborn? no problem. 3 years old? sure. teenager? even better. kill, kill, kill!"
do you guys really believe your comparisons are fair? no one is saying the above statements...
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by JMS; 03-11-2008 at 05:28 PM. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|