Well now you see this is where the difference is, I have no wish to kill anything, so your premise about me is incorrect, and please do tell me how it can be anything other than controlling women, given that you want the government it enact a law that would remove the womans right to decide what to do with her own body and anything occupying that body. Put simply, you support the removal of the individuals choice (ie control) and I support the right of the individual to have that choice. If as you say you value the fetus as much as a baby then good for you, I am sure if you were ever to become pregnant you would go through with it .. however why do you feel that your own personal choice should be mandatory for every other person to the extent that you would force your choice onto others by law. That is what a tyrant/dictator does now how about answering the questions I put to you;
Maybe because private prisons earn too much for the fatcats who've given their favored politicians a sufficient amount of campaign contributions?
I just admitted I would save my three year old and not my baby if that was the choice. Your point is not a point.
I have explained my position. The human life prior to viability is ....a human life. I prefer not to have our society kill human life at whim. Just like you wouldn't want us to kill newborns at whim. You simply don't see early human life as.....precious and worthy of protection. Its disposable. You want to make it about controlling women because you would rather have that as the argument. But that is a dishonest way to debate. Since you must cling to that premise---I will assume you simply want to kill fetuses. We will go forward with that until you can go with the real premise and lose the one fabricated in your own mind.
I don't consider this issue a moral one. Too me morals have to do with the standards we live by (Sex before or after marriage, modest clothing, co-habiting or marriage..blah blah) Pro-abortion and pro-life has to do with when a society values human life. For instance in India it is common for families to kill baby girls. I don't consider that a problem with morality. I consider that a society that doesn't value human life...especially human girls.
But would you admit you would save a 6 month old baby instead of a tray of 30 embryos? Why do you keep avoiding the question?
I am not understanding the point you are making. So let me be clear. I would save my baby before embyros. I would save my three year old before the baby. NOw. What is your point? Does that mean we can devalue embryos and babies as a society? Or does that mean that if you must choose between two children, you choose the one that you have built the better relationship with?
You are not answering the question that was asked. You have added your own variable to the scenario. I asked if you would save "A" 6 month old baby or a tray of embryos. There is nothing in that question to indicate a relationship. You are making my point quite clearly by refusing to answer the question as it was asked. And we know what the answer would be regardless, because society does not regard an embryo as equal to a born baby. They are not the same, as you must realize by now. By saying embryos and babies are the same, you are elevating the value of embryos as equal to born humans ,and they are not, as this test proves. That has nothing to do with the question I asked. That is nothing but your own obfuscation.
I'm getting frustrated. I answered your question. Either take it or change the subject because its now getting weird.
And you know my answer destroyed your point. Because I did answer. And then added my own point to it. I'm sorry that I couldn't help you with your own argument. Why don't you answer how you wished I had? That might be easier.
That's because s/he doesn't want to admit that embryos are not even remotely close to being the same thing as a born human being as it would destroy all previous arguments that embryos/fetuses = babies. It's very hard for people to admit their wrongs sometimes.
You know, there was one such man that had the exact same mentality as the pro-aborts do. He considered Jews to be less than human.
Who here has said fetuses are not human or even 'less than human'? If anything most of us just don't believe any human, born or not, has the right to use women's body against their wills for any purpose, including life support.
And you are wrong. And Cady can't admit it. Let me restate: Cady asked me what would I choose in a fire--a tray of embryos or 6 month old baby. And my answer You have the freedom to ignore some of my point to help make your own if that helps the angst. :
So a hospital is on fire and you have the opportunity to save 30 newborn infants or 1 child, you do not know any of them, have absolutely no relation to them either. It's a hard choice, but most people would save the 30 newborn infants because that's 30 people. Now if you are in an invitro fertilization clinic and it is on fire and you have the opportunity to save 30 embryos in a petri dish or one child (same situation you don't know them nor have any relation to them) you would save the child, why? Because you know the child is a person and you KNOW the embryos are not people, let alone 30 people. Not to mention this one is not even close to being a hard choice like the first situation. It's not hard to not save 30 fertilized embryos in a petri dish because you know they are not thinking, feeling, living, breathing people. It's just a no brainer to save the kid, the person.
And where does it stop? Do we start exterminating the elderly and infirm just because they don't serve a "useful purpose" You pro aborts make me want to vomit. Ever since Roe, we have become a far more violent society because we don't embrace the sanctity of life as a culture.
I believe the OP to be trolling, but I will answer it anyway: Abortion is not 'good'. It never has been, and never will be. It is not something to be proud of. Abortion shouldn't happen, and yet it is a fact of life that it does. I find it sickening that someone who obviously supports abortion would be encouraging more abortions, instead of working on solutions to prevent it.
I don't think abortion is a bad thing. It will always be needed in order for women to control their own reproductive health and determine their own destinies. I don't believe a zygote or an embryo is a person, but that the right to life is gradually achieved as the fetus develops, which is consistent with the Roe v. Wade decision. It is also consistent with the opinion of most Americans who support abortion rights in the first trimester and want Roe v. Wade upheld. Ideally, women would have easily accessible contraception so they would never have to make the difficult decision between abortion or pregnancy and birth of a child they are physically or financially unable to care for, but abortion should always be available as a last resort.
You may assume anything you like, still doesn't make it correct, and just as you will "go forward" with the incorrect premise that I simply want to kill fetuses then I shall go forward with the premise that for you its about control, until you can go with the real premise and lose the one fabricated in your own mind. - - - Updated - - - You will get no disagreement from me that part of the issue is the value we place on life .. however that doesn't seem to bother the majority of pro-lifers when it comes to post-birth, the death penality or illegal wars.
True .. problem with that comparrison is that he did it to born humans, ones who (should have) had the rights associated with that status, ones who were independent sentient persons, a fetus is none of those, so your comparrison is illogical and pretty much invalid.
show me a pro choice person make this argument for abortion, I've never heard anyone say that a fetus does not serve a "useful purpose" so abortion should be legal. Show a study that shows abortion equates to a violent society otherwise it's about as useful a statement as saying after giving black people equal rights it stopped the development our space program.
Not another one who has absolutely no knowledge of the history of the world! A. Humans have been violent since humans were invented which was before abortion showed up. B. Wars, murders, torture , robbery, rape...lots of violence and no one was using abortion as an excuse.. C. Abortion has been around, legal and illegal, since the first woman said, "Oh crap, not another one." It didn't start with R v W. So there is no correlation between abortion and how violent humans are.
Definitely there is a good argument to be made for abortion in the case where there are already too many people or that the environment is so dysfunctional as to promote further dysfunction. Your language usage needs correction in places though. There is no "baby" in the early stages of pregnancy. Termination of the pregnancy would be a better term.
