No. A sacrifice is a sacrifice. If you are saving money to buy a new laptop and then go and spend those savings on a new laptop, you have not made a sacrifice.
He may be a newborn, but in It really cannot say "a lot" because it only represents a very perceptual image of a newborn baby and since abortion is a much deeper philosophical issue, that image is not enough to help anyone understand the issue. Of course, this strategy is always being used and what is being done is always very transparent; the purpose is to present a provoking illustration to manipuöate yhe audiences emotions. If you are so interested in images, you should look at one of an embryo and then ask yourself if that thingy even remotely looks like anything hu,an and then ask if that thingy really should have any rights. My first reaction to seeing such a picture was "what in the blue hell is that crap?" Such image would actually be less manipulative since it is not a newborn's life that is ended in an abortion. Btw, maybe I am just a weirdo, but I do not think newborns are cute at all. Should have used a photo of a one year old with the caption "I might be 365 days old, but my life started more than 10 000 hours ago (convert to seconds if needed)."
Whaler - get a grip. You have yet to figure out what a child is .. and so your comments about child sacrifice are nonsensical.
Alright, now hang on. You say it is "undeniable" without giving us a reason as to why that is -- Exactly what makes it "undeniable"? Secondly, exactly what is "anti-religion"? As I see it, there are several problems with the way you peresent this. The first one is the obvious misrepresesentation of a ZEF as a "child" and the second is the very loose and incorrect use of the term "sacrifice"; a sacrifice is giving up a higher value in favour of a lower one. Women who have abortions are not sacrificing anything, they prefer to be childless and therefore choose not to be mothers. It is a very moral and rational choice that cannot be described as a "sacrifice". A sacrifice in this context would actually be to give birth. As far as the link between pro-abortion and "anti-religion" goes, I think it is rather the other way around -- anti-abortionist are usually not "pro-religion", but rather are they religious and base their entire position on superstitious second-handedness such as "because God said so". Furthermore, those who are pro-abortion typically do not judge people based on their beliefs, it less common for them to be against the choices of other people than it is for anti-abortionists to be so. It is more common for anti-abortionists to, for example, also be anti-extramarital sex and anti-homosecuality than it is for the pro-abortion side to be "anti-religion'. I do, however, think that a lot if, not most, are either atheist or agnostic. Speaking for myself, I am strictly atheist and strictly pro-abortion.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that a fetus that has never achieved a mental existance is not a person. That's the crux of the issue. They're not persons, so they're not children.
Since they are not a person then it is OK to kill them.......typical dehumanizing to justify an atrocity. Serial killers often refer to their victims as an "it" in order to dehumanize them. Blacks were referred to as "subhuman" in order to justify using them as slaves.
No, that's not how it works. Born blacks had their right taken away from them ....just like Anti-Choicers are trying to do to women..
How did blacks have any rights before they were born....by your logic they had them taken away...... No one is taking away women's rights. If they do not want to get pregnant they have every right to keep it in their pants. But even if they can't they have the right to birth control. This idea of forcing women to have a baby is a goofy notion.
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, that's not how it works. Born blacks had their right taken away from them ....just like Anti-Choicers are trying to do to women.. WHERE TF did I say that? Nowhere.....I stated , as proven by my post above : Born blacks had their right taken away from them YES, their rights were taken away when they lost their right to bodily autonomy EXACTLY what Anti-Choicers want to do to pregnant women. Yes, some people ARE trying to take away women's right to bodily autonomy by banning abortion. . Or not....even women have a right to have sex.....whether you approve or not. Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes that should be punished by having rights taken away.. But that's exactly what Anti-Choicers are trying to do by banning abortion. BTW, NO one is obligated to use birth control....
Why would we refer to a zygote - when it has not been shown to be a child ? Should we refer to a unique cancer cell as a child as well - that would be abject nonsense on steroids .. same as what you are suggesting. You need to think about the implications of what you are saying.
Which is a ridiculous comparison because those are persons with minds who can suffer - unlike an early fetus. There is no person to dehumanize - just tissue.
Oh I see. Abortionists must dehumanize their victims. Women need to stop playing the victim here. They need to take responsibility for their own actions. No one is forcing them to do anything.
Yeah, there's actually not that many children in that situation. There's about 7 times more late-term abortions for unnecessary elective reasons than there are children who are killed by guns, just to put things in perspective.