Killing Babies no Different from Abortion, Experts Say

No kidding. MOD EDIT - Rule 2

Actually at first, I thought this article would be about pro-lifers making a Devil's advocate style point against abortion. It's even worse as this is an actual argument being put forward by serious scholars. I guess we can now start talking about putting senile, alzheimer's and individuals with brain damage due to accidents out of their misery and ours.

 

It is a logical next step. What is the difference between 1 hour before, or 1 hour after birth? Other than some air being infused in the infant's lungs, they are still helpless dependents, unable to survive on their own.

If you accept the premise, this is a logical conclusion. I'm impressed they are being honest & up front about it. Of course, this could just mean a revival of eugenics, which i think is still coming. it fits in too well with the leftist view of 'control'.. social engineering, human engineering.. what's the difference?

 

They are radical extremists. It's just the other end of the spectrum from those who think life begins at conception and would ban abortion with no exceptions.

 

Radical extremists science deniers say that life does not begin at conception.

Now those who would ban abortion with no exceptions may be considered radical extremists, yes. There should be an exception to save the life of the mother, of course. That would be a pro-life position because you are saving the life of the mother. If the child is determined to have an extreme defect that would not allow it to live, that would also be a reason for an abortion. I see no reason to perform an abortion otherwise.

 

Just because YOU don't see a reason doesn't mean there aren't reasons.


Why do you think a fetus has more rights than women?

 

Well, when do Radical extremists, science deniers, birthers, anti choice, haters, bigots say that life begins? Is there a consensus? Who are all those people, anyway?

And.... IF you are going to allow exceptions before birth, why not after? If the same parameters are in play, what is the difference? If 'birth defect' or gender, or 'the mother's life' or other things are valid reasons to terminate the life of the unborn, why would it not be ok to do it a few hours (or days, or weeks) after birth?

 

How ignorant to ASSume these two people speak for all liberals...and why do you lie and call the authors "experts" ???

 

A woman has a right to life. Thus the exception. One does not have more rights than the other as it should be in a free society.

 

"""One does not have more rights than the other """"


That's why women can get abortions......

 

I don't speak for radical extremists, science deniers, birthers, haters or bigots. You have to ask them.

I think the reasons are self explanatory. Or are you also playing Devil's advocate?

- - - Updated - - -

MOD EDIT - Reply to Deleted

- - - Updated - - -

Because she has more rights than the other? You are making my point my friend. It should not be thus in a free society.

One should not be allowed to deny or deprive another of life without reason or cause.

 

My question was why exceptions are ok before birth, but not after. No reasons were given, so they cannot be self explanatory.

 

My mother was pro-choice.

Should one be required to GIVE life to another even though it requires enormous sacrifice on her part?

 

No heroic intervention can sometimes be the choice of parents of a newborn with serious multiple birth defects ..

 

Next logical step you ask? Step away from the activist hyperbole, that's the next logical step.

 

This is the core of their argument:

Babies cannot yet attribute value to their own existence, therefore there is nothing wrong with killing them, they say.

But this is all based on assuming that there is nothing wrong with killing those who dont value their own existence. Which makes certain sense, but it is also a problematic criterion because to value your existence requires quite an advanced state of mental abilities. Id rather not go that far. Something more basic than that should be the criterion of personhood. For example mere sentience (the ability to feel).

 

Well thank God she made the right choice in your case.

It should be more difficult to sacrifice your children than it is to sacrifice your responsibility.

I am only aware of one virgin birth, and she took it upon herself to give birth and raise that child. Look how he turned out.

 

Science doesn't say life begins at conception. The sperm and egg are also alive and essential components of a fertilized egg.

 

But a sperm is just a sperm, and an egg is just an egg, until fertilization takes place. Then it's a human life. Don't they teach basic biology anymore?

 

Any person that understands "life is a cycle" from conception to death, yet feels any other person or society has rights over that life, logically should assume life could be ended "for cause" at any point. Natural or health problems, occur all the time in that cycle, from miscarriage to hundreds of health causes or as in conception, when time expires that life.

 

A sperm is just a sperm, and an egg is just an egg? Remember, it required the combination of a specific sperm and a specific egg to make you who you are. Fertilization can't take place without either of them, they are both essential in the cycle of life. Fertilization is a significant point, but life began before then, billions of years ago. You would not be here if not for the actions of your great great great + grandparents, so how can you say your life "began" at conception?

 

You should trust women to make the right choice. After all, they know more about their own lives, their own abilities, their own resources than anyone else.

Women who choose abortion are sacrificing neither. Those who see a zef as a "child" are simply imagining the future. Those who see abortion as irresponsible are simply failing to imagine the future.

I would recommend to any virgin who finds herself pregnant, to carefully give consideration to giving birth...just in case. But if God speaks to her about the pregnancy, she definitely should give birth.

 

And IF the fetus is given "person" status it has no more rights than the woman it's in.

It does NOT have the right to use her body or cause her bodily harm any more than any other person....so she has every right to end the harm, it's called self defense.

 

IF a fetus is a "person" with rights it ALSO has the restrictions or a person.

It cannot harm another person nor use another person to sustain it's life without repercussions.

Women have the right to self defense against injury or death JUST LIKE YOU DO but YOU don't want women to have that right.

 

Absolutely ridiculous OP.....two people, count 'em, TWO say something Really Stupid and the Anti-Choicers jump on the Dumb Wagon...""OH, the liberals are going to kill everybody and the sky is falling and we're all doomed!!!


Laughable and pathetic....

 

That's a real stupid argument. Should I respond or just ignore it?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, it's a zef now? What about a blastoid?

That was you at one point btw.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a baby. Not an infection.

- - - Updated - - -

Well I am just speaking to the lack of respect for life that liberals have. I didn't say that the world is going to end because of global warming or some stupid thing like that.