CP3S said:
but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form.
if that is what you believe, why do you think people have the right to kill it.
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered? I'll never understand it. But you're welcome to try to make me. I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.
Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.
It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment. I am sure you've heard of adoption. It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.
Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.
but can you really be certain foster homes and orphanages are worst than death? Also not all babies that are up for adoption end up in foster homes and/or orphanages. Some people find the adoptive parents before the baby is born. Then the baby goes directly from the natural mother to the adoptive parents. I don't think that is so bad.
CP3S said:
And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.
I could be wrong, but I think mothers usually recover quickly from birth if they take care of themselves.
CP3S said:
Also, you have to take care of yourself to bring a healthy baby into the world, a lot of women aren't prepared to do that. Do we force them to carry their babies to term, and if so does that mean we have to force them to sustain from alcohol, tobacco, and other perfectly legal things that may be harmful to the child we are forcing them to have?
better that than kill another human being.
CP3S said:
again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive. You are playing God.
I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?
I am not sure what else you call it went you decide that someone is better off death than alive and therefore its ok to kill that person.
CP3S said:
Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?
and if the child doesn't want to die? though?
CP3S said:
twister111 said:
However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?
a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.
This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above. Try being pregnant then making the same claim that it isn't an attack. Pregnancy can be extremely uncomfortable, and can do a lot to harm the mother's health.
I am sure it can, but I still don't how a fetus taking nutrients can be compared to a mugging. The fetus isn't even making a conscious choice.
CP3S said:
twister111 said:
All that said yes I realize a kid can be a wonderful, wondrous, and inspiring bit of joy to enter someone's life. I just recognize that the situation isn't completely black and white. There are too many variables to every situation to conclusively say "Yes you must keep the kid alive, because we say so!"
I wouldn't put it "because we say so!" I would put it: " you must keep the kid alive cause murder is wrong."
And it is murder because we say so.
I am not sure what else you call killing a human being.
tell me, does the KKK have a right to say that killing black people isn't murder? nope. that's also cause we say so.
CP3S said:
The word "murder" is properly used in reference to an unlawful killing, not just any killing in general.
in Germany in the early 1940's I am pretty sure it wasn't unlawful to kill a Jewish person, yet it I am pretty sure we'd still call it murder.
CP3S said:
You sure about that?
so now you want infer that I am sexist just because I a pro-abortion? Even though I a pro-all kinds of women's rights? Don't ever complain about someone saying race has something to do with those that hate Obama.
to answer your question: yes I am 200% certain I have no desire to control women. All I want to do preserve life once it already exists. That you would infer I am a sexist and that I want to control women, angers me.
As for defending abortion even if it is human life: If the fetus is human with the same rights as you and I? how is killing it any different than killing it once its outside the womb? If a mother gave birth to a baby, and then decided that since she really didn't want it. She thought adoption is so terrible and the baby will be better off dead than alive, so she kills it. We call that murder, right? Why should it be different for a human still inside the womb?