No, and that child's life is every bit as valuable as yours. You are arrogant to suggest that this unfortunate child's life is of so little value that the child should have been aborted.
I have heard many a pro-abort say that the handicapped should also have been aborted, but I have yet to meet a handicapped person who complains that he or she was given the chance to live.
If one considers that life is that which can live on it's own, or as in the dictionary's definition displays measureable brain activity, then a fetus becomes a viable life at three months gestation.
Before that, it is a mass of growing cells that can not exist on it's own, just as a seed without soil and sun and moisture is not a plant.
If one considers that atoms themselves are alive, then everything that exists is alive and must not be harmed, so we all get to starve to death in the name of an atoms right to live.
Or, we could say that because all atoms are indeed alive and can only be "killed" by splitting, then the alteration of the current circumstantial form of said atoms is entirely inconsequential and abortion of a "life" is a moot issue.
Personally I think people should be more worried about creating peace on earth so that all those babies they want to force us to have will at least have half a chance of eating before being eaten.
Until then, all you anti abortionists are wasting a lot of valuable time.
An 18 month old child is a mass of cells that cannot exist on it's own.
That's using the phrase "existing on their own" in a different way. Neither an 18 month old child nor someone's elderly grandfather require being physically attached to someone else's body, brought everywhere they go, and have that person's body affected by the attachment.
You're right guys, forget it. That's why this topic is a fruitless debate. When you can't even decide or agree when life begins then discussion becomes difficult, we each resort to sensationalism and hyperbole. If you don't think a 7 month old "fetus" is a human then so be it. Have a nice day though.
If you don't think a 7 month old "fetus" is a human then so be it.
A 7 month old fetus can be kept alive without the mother. It's just a premature birth - unless there is some other medical issue. OTOH, in the first trimester, this is not the case.
My point is that there is a world of difference between a human fetus in the first trimester and one in the third trimester. Nearly all abortions occur in the first trimester. Beyond that, it's considered dangerous and avoided. Planned Parenthood recomommends, for the highest safety, that it be done prior to six weeks gestation.
At six weeks or less, you can hardly call this clump of cells human. It is potentially human, but still requires a lot of resources and prenatal care from the mother for it to come out a normal human, seven or more months later.
There's a world of difference between Bobby the down syndrome boy, and Albert Einstein. Does this make Bobby less human?
It's a wholly different world of difference. There's also a world of difference between you and I, but that adds nothing to the argument about when a zygote grows into something that can be called a human with rights. If you want to stay on topic (i.e., gestation), than we can continue. Otherwise, you waste my time.
Chester D. wrote: It's a wholly different world of difference. There's also a world of difference between you and I, but that adds nothing to the argument about when a zygote grows into something that can be called a human with rights. If you want to stay on topic (i.e., gestation), than we can continue. Otherwise, you waste my time.
Chester, my man, you haunt a place that is incapapble of staying on topic. You, sir, are a waste of everyone's time. What does "It's a wholly different world of difference" mean? Hate filled rantings I suppose.
I don't know why I shouldn't talk about it, my dear ares. The word "haunt" means "to visit often or continually; to frequent." It can also mean "to seek the company or companionship of." Don't you think that applies to our good friend Chester D.?
What does "It's a wholly different world of difference" mean? Hate filled rantings I suppose.
I would be more than willing to hear your view wrt why a fetus that is incapable of living without the resources of its own host should have human rights above that of its host.
Usually we consider someone as a separate entity from a person when it can exist apart from that person. A two-month embryo or even a first trimester fetus is incapable of existence without the mother. It is virtually a part of her body.
Now how is that "hate-filled?" I think you're looking for hate in all the wrong places. If you can prove to me that there is a basis apart from your own religious beliefs that a first trimester fetus has human rights that supercedes those of its mother, I'm willing to listen. Most often, it comes down to someone pushing their religious beliefs onto others, or attempting to control the behavior of others when that behavior is none of their business.
BTW, I just showed up here, because it's a debate forum, and I'm here for that purpose. I'm not frequenting a place which is clearly tagged that those with my point of view aren't welcome, and then trying to debate people in that forum, as you often do with your many dead president personas.
It is a separate living entity that has began its life journey. That life may end in old age or it may end at the hands of an abortionist. But make no mistake that life has began.
I'm not frequenting a place which is clearly tagged that those with my point of view aren't welcome,....
Oh I thought you liberal types prided your selves on inclusivity. I think you must delude yourself on a daily basis. Your group apparently is nothing more than a number of closed minded bigots.
methinks you missed the point, jethro. its not about being closed-minded. its about the thread you seem to enjoy so much having a very distinct purpose. a purpose in which your personal viewpoints are not welcome.
i'm beginning to think the the best things about you were left in the brown stain in the bedsheets from what seeped down your momma's ass crack.
it has something to do with one party's right to live and the other party's right to kill
No. It has more to do with which of the two can be considered a "party" and which can't.
It is a separate living entity that has began its life journey. That life may end in old age or it may end at the hands of an abortionist. But make no mistake that life has began.
"Make no mistake" is no argument. What are the arguments for it being alive?
Now, if you want to proceed, I would appreciate you tone down your insults:
"If you would stop and think, which of course I don't expect from you,"
Me: "I'm willing to listen." You: "No you are not."
"I think you must delude yourself on a daily basis" and finally "Your group apparently is nothing more than a number of closed minded bigots."
And this was only two posts!!! Why begin with insults? If you have something of value to say, say it.
because jethro has placed his mind in a box and has gone into the dark corner to whimper and hide from all of those who disagree with him. You will not ever get a straight and thoughtful answer to your questions from him. All you will ever recieve is formula responses or cries that what we say is irrelevant or propaganda. According to him all women lose ANY rights over their own bodies as soon as they become pregnant. The fetus has ALL the rights from that point onward. He also believes that the individual is subordinate to the society so his position on abortion is not unexpected. He whole-heartedly believes in sacrifice and life at any price. So expect the insults to continue.
its not about being closed-minded. its about the thread you seem to enjoy so much having a very distinct purpose. a purpose in which your personal viewpoints are not welcome. No it really is about THEM keeping people out because they are incapable of dealing with.
i'm beginning to think the the best things about you were left in the brown stain in the bedsheets from what seeped down your momma's ass crack. You can only hope to be so important.
Society demands more from people than just selfishness.
And what do you do for society? Are you completely unselfish?
Or are expectant mothers the only ones who are expected to sacrifice their needs and desires for society?
And furthermore, why should people be that unselfish to begin with? What is the basis for requiring unselfishness from people?
And lastly, how is having a baby in this overpopulated world an unselfish act to begin with? It seems more selfish to me for people to have many many babies with no regard for others' needs.
What is your position wrt abortion when it was due to rape? Is it asking very little of someone in that case?
It is unfortunate that children are sometime conceived from rape. But one thing is clear the child did not ask to be conceived. Two wrongs aren't going to make a right.
I used to never post on anything but the Treasure Hunt boards. But even then I had heard tales of the jethro bodine boogeyman that lurked in these parts. My first actual experience with him was when he wandered into the shoot the breeze thread or maybe it was a treasure hunt thread and started an argument with Dal about how one should think about abortion all the time, even on Christmas Day (she was lamenting the Christmas sermon taking an anti-abortion stance).
At the time my first thought was, "What an obsessed nut!" I figured he was probably just like so many others I'd run into who seem to have self-esteem problems and try to make themselves feel better by using morality as crutch to claim superiority to others and then insult them to further try and make themselves feel better.
I believe I was wrong though. My impression of jethro now is actually quite different. I still don't agree with him, and I still don't much care for his caustic attitude, but I think his reputation otherwise is rather underserved.
Jethro believes that once conceived, the embryo is fully human. It is after all a human embryo, it does have a unique set of genes, and looking at a person's existence as measuring from their conception to their death isn't necessarily wrong. I believe there is a noteworthy difference between one who has been born and one who has not. Jethro doesn't. There's nothing I can do to prove his belief wrong. I can only disagree with it.
Now if someone does see the unborn as being as human as anyone else, I rather expect them to be against abortion. I expect that they would feel moral outrage at what amounts in their mind to the killing of innocents. It actually seems to me that jethro's arguments are in fact pretty logically consistent given his premise.
But actually the reason I'm writing this about him in particular is that he's actually impressed me with his willingness to take stances that can be both intriguing and unpopular. I found myself agreeing with most of what he said in the Civil War thread even though it runs counter to mainstream thought today. And even on a topic like bombing abortion clinics. He never said he was in favor it. He said he could see where someone might try and use as a defense that they were protecting the lives of others. It's kind of twisting the logic of self-defense, but I too can see where someone might try and make that case. It doesn't mean I'd support it as a viable option if I were anti-abortion, and I kind of doubt jethro would encourage it either. Although I suspect he does find it amusing to see what happens when people think he might.
I'm still going to disagree with jethro. I'm still going to argue with him. But I'm not going to believe his opinion is worthless.
I believe there is a big difference between a freshly conceived zygote and an embryo of several months. There is a big difference all through gestation from day to day, because development proceeds at a fast pace in the womb. There is a big difference between a newly born baby and a child of several years, and between a child and an adult.
Yes, all share a human genome, but what endows us with rights is not our genes, but our brains. It is our brains that allow us to feel, to imagine, to create and to love.
After all, we are not loathe to pull the plug on a patient in a terminal coma. A person in this state is completely dependent on others, and feels nothing. An early embryo is in a similar state. If not for the willingness of the mother to nourish and protect it, it will die. Its brain has not developed to any extent we would yet recognize as human. The difference between the patient and an unwanted embryo is that the patient has no imaginable future. However, the unwanted embryo also has no future without the intervention of someone willing to nourish and protect it. As long as we as a society can't take over the job for the mother, we can't force her to do so.
To say that she is responsible for the conception is a bit naive, too. In the case of rape, it is certainly not the case. And no method of contraception is flawless. And frankly, humans aren't perfect, and to expect perfect behavior from humans is hypocritical. Pushing "abstention" as the only sanctioned form of contraception is the absolute height of naivete, and will only serve to worsen the problem.
As for aborting later-stage fetuses, my position is that the mother's health should take precendence over the fetus, unless both can be saved safely. I don't believe in late-stage elective abortions. The longer a woman waits, the more the fetus' brain is developing and therefore the more human it is becoming.
I'm aware of the name calling, but I'm not terribly surprised by it given his position. I can understand the position that if you think an unborn child is no different from a born child, that anyone who would advocate killing innocent children (as he sees it) would of course be seen as evil, corrupt, or whatever other names he uses. That's why I don't take offense when he uses them, because his statement would be true if I agreed with his premise. But since I don't agree with his premise, I don't agree with his conclusions either that such statements apply to me. So I don't really pay much attention to those or let them bother me.
However, the unwanted embryo also has no future without the intervention of someone willing to nourish and protect it. As long as we as a society can't take over the job for the mother, we can't force her to do so. And why can't we? We supposedly pride ourselves on compassion for the helpless. Just because you think society should do the job and you feel society isn't wiling to do so does not support the alternative of death. Society should demand responsibility for those that conceive children.
To say that she is responsible for the conception is a bit naive, too. In the case of rape, it is certainly not the case. And no method of contraception is flawless. And frankly, humans aren't perfect, and to expect perfect behavior from humans is hypocritical. Pushing "abstention" as the only sanctioned form of contraception is the absolute height of naivete, and will only serve to worsen the problem. No one expects perfect behavior. But imperfect behavior also does not support killing unborn children.
fold wrote: The fact is Allison, that IF you disagree with Jethro on Abortion, you are immediately dismissed by him as corrupt, evil and less than Human.
fold you can agree with me and I would still dismiss you as corrupt, evil and less than Human!!!!
I bet he enjoys all the attention he gets here, though. Probably the more outrageous his statements, the more attention he gets. Look, this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, but instead it becomes a discussion about him. I wonder if that's what drives him...
Simple minds make simple statements. fold, I suppose is an adult. At least I believe he is living in an adult's body. He has had his choices and has become what he is. Unborn children haven't had that opportunity and they are innocent. I don't believe I have ever said that I believe all human life is equal. I wouldn't value the life of the Ted Bundy's of the world the same as others. I even think fold is higher on the chain than that! See fold, I can say something good about you!!!!
bet he enjoys all the attention he gets here, though. Probably the more outrageous his statements, the more attention he gets. Look, this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, but instead it becomes a discussion about him. I wonder if that's what drives him...
Nope, it isn't about me. It is about you and many others like you.
"Would the child above be better off not being born??"
Naradar 12/21/02 10:46am
No, and that child's life is every bit as valuable as yours. You are arrogant to suggest that this unfortunate child's life is of so little value that the child should have been aborted.
I have heard many a pro-abort say that the handicapped should also have been aborted, but I have yet to meet a handicapped person who complains that he or she was given the chance to live.
If one considers that life is that which can live on it's own, or as in the dictionary's definition displays measureable brain activity, then a fetus becomes a viable life at three months gestation.
Before that, it is a mass of growing cells that can not exist on it's own, just as a seed without soil and sun and moisture is not a plant.
If one considers that atoms themselves are alive, then everything that exists is alive and must not be harmed, so we all get to starve to death in the name of an atoms right to live.
Or, we could say that because all atoms are indeed alive and can only be "killed" by splitting, then the alteration of the current circumstantial form of said atoms is entirely inconsequential and abortion of a "life" is a moot issue.
Personally I think people should be more worried about creating peace on earth so that all those babies they want to force us to have will at least have half a chance of eating before being eaten.
Until then, all you anti abortionists are wasting a lot of valuable time.
Before that, it is a mass of growing cells that can not exist on it's own, just as a seed without soil and sun and moisture is not a plant.
An 18 month old child is a mass of cells that cannot exist on it's own.
My 72 year old Grandfather was a mass of cells that couldn't exist on his own.
EXISTENCE! Life should be an exuberant joy and not some small wimpering thing in a dark corner lingering on into infinity.
It is a question of what is considered "life".
That's the crux of it, Titania!
And who is making that decision?
Who is doing the considering?
Should the majority decide for everyone?
Or should each person decide for themselves?
An 18 month old child is a mass of cells that cannot exist on it's own.
That's using the phrase "existing on their own" in a different way. Neither an 18 month old child nor someone's elderly grandfather require being physically attached to someone else's body, brought everywhere they go, and have that person's body affected by the attachment.
Each of those exampled are distinctly themselves and given adequate medical care, can and will survive. But interutero nope.
You're right guys, forget it. That's why this topic is a fruitless debate. When you can't even decide or agree when life begins then discussion becomes difficult, we each resort to sensationalism and hyperbole. If you don't think a 7 month old "fetus" is a human then so be it. Have a nice day though.
A 7 month old fetus can be kept alive without the mother. It's just a premature birth - unless there is some other medical issue. OTOH, in the first trimester, this is not the case.
My point is that there is a world of difference between a human fetus in the first trimester and one in the third trimester. Nearly all abortions occur in the first trimester. Beyond that, it's considered dangerous and avoided. Planned Parenthood recomommends, for the highest safety, that it be done prior to six weeks gestation.
At six weeks or less, you can hardly call this clump of cells human. It is potentially human, but still requires a lot of resources and prenatal care from the mother for it to come out a normal human, seven or more months later.
I love the "mass of cells" argument.
There's a world of difference between Bobby the down syndrome boy, and Albert Einstein. Does this make Bobby less human?
At what point do we become human? Were our parents expecting a dalmation and were disappointed when Mom gave birth to a human?
It's a wholly different world of difference. There's also a world of difference between you and I, but that adds nothing to the argument about when a zygote grows into something that can be called a human with rights. If you want to stay on topic (i.e., gestation), than we can continue. Otherwise, you waste my time.
Were your parents expecting a dalmation?
You're trying to define it by gestation? It doesn't float. It's still human, simply at a different stage.
Anyway, we're wasting each others time.
Later
The question is when it acquires rights, apart from those of the mother, not when it becomes a member of our species, apart from all other species.
So I was able to liven up this board, at least for a while. heheheheheh......
EXISTENCE! Life should be an exuberant joy and not some small wimpering thing in a dark corner lingering on into infinity.
Well, kit, I am sure you know a lot about whimpering in a dark corner.
Chester D. wrote: It's a wholly different world of difference. There's also a world of difference between you and I, but that adds nothing to the argument about when a zygote grows into something that can be called a human with rights. If you want to stay on topic (i.e., gestation), than we can continue. Otherwise, you waste my time.
Chester, my man, you haunt a place that is incapapble of staying on topic. You, sir, are a waste of everyone's time. What does "It's a wholly different world of difference" mean? Hate filled rantings I suppose.
as if you should talk about haunting places...
I don't know why I shouldn't talk about it, my dear ares. The word "haunt" means "to visit often or continually; to frequent." It can also mean "to seek the company or companionship of." Don't you think that applies to our good friend Chester D.?
I would be more than willing to hear your view wrt why a fetus that is incapable of living without the resources of its own host should have human rights above that of its host.
Usually we consider someone as a separate entity from a person when it can exist apart from that person. A two-month embryo or even a first trimester fetus is incapable of existence without the mother. It is virtually a part of her body.
Now how is that "hate-filled?" I think you're looking for hate in all the wrong places. If you can prove to me that there is a basis apart from your own religious beliefs that a first trimester fetus has human rights that supercedes those of its mother, I'm willing to listen. Most often, it comes down to someone pushing their religious beliefs onto others, or attempting to control the behavior of others when that behavior is none of their business.
and it applies equally as much to you, jethro.
BTW, I just showed up here, because it's a debate forum, and I'm here for that purpose. I'm not frequenting a place which is clearly tagged that those with my point of view aren't welcome, and then trying to debate people in that forum, as you often do with your many dead president personas.
It is a separate living entity that has began its life journey. That life may end in old age or it may end at the hands of an abortionist. But make no mistake that life has began.
I'm not frequenting a place which is clearly tagged that those with my point of view aren't welcome,....
Oh I thought you liberal types prided your selves on inclusivity. I think you must delude yourself on a daily basis. Your group apparently is nothing more than a number of closed minded bigots.
methinks you missed the point, jethro. its not about being closed-minded. its about the thread you seem to enjoy so much having a very distinct purpose. a purpose in which your personal viewpoints are not welcome.
i'm beginning to think the the best things about you were left in the brown stain in the bedsheets from what seeped down your momma's ass crack.
Oh I thought you liberal types prided your selves on inclusivity.
As much as the Pope would acquiesce to a blood transfusion from a HIV positive person.
No. It has more to do with which of the two can be considered a "party" and which can't.
"Make no mistake" is no argument. What are the arguments for it being alive?
Now, if you want to proceed, I would appreciate you tone down your insults:
"If you would stop and think, which of course I don't expect from you,"
Me: "I'm willing to listen." You: "No you are not."
"I think you must delude yourself on a daily basis" and finally "Your group apparently is nothing more than a number of closed minded bigots."
And this was only two posts!!! Why begin with insults? If you have something of value to say, say it.
because jethro has placed his mind in a box and has gone into the dark corner to whimper and hide from all of those who disagree with him. You will not ever get a straight and thoughtful answer to your questions from him. All you will ever recieve is formula responses or cries that what we say is irrelevant or propaganda. According to him all women lose ANY rights over their own bodies as soon as they become pregnant. The fetus has ALL the rights from that point onward. He also believes that the individual is subordinate to the society so his position on abortion is not unexpected. He whole-heartedly believes in sacrifice and life at any price. So expect the insults to continue.
its not about being closed-minded. its about the thread you seem to enjoy so much having a very distinct purpose. a purpose in which your personal viewpoints are not welcome. No it really is about THEM keeping people out because they are incapable of dealing with.
i'm beginning to think the the best things about you were left in the brown stain in the bedsheets from what seeped down your momma's ass crack. You can only hope to be so important.
No what you say is selfish nonsense.
Let's see..the child is growing daily and developing. If the butcher's leave it alone the child will be born.
And what do you do for society?
Are you completely unselfish?
Or are expectant mothers the only ones who are expected to sacrifice their needs and desires for society?
And furthermore, why should people be that unselfish to begin with? What is the basis for requiring unselfishness from people?
And lastly, how is having a baby in this overpopulated world an unselfish act to begin with? It seems more selfish to me for people to have many many babies with no regard for others' needs.
Yeah, you people. Quit being so damn selfish. Just go ahead and kill yourselves now.
No. Do you think that is my position? The father needs to be responsible also.
What is your position wrt abortion when it was due to rape? Is it asking very little of someone in that case?
I'm trying to understand your position, and for this I need to know its parameters.
I see you that you must be waiting anxiously for my next post, Chester. Groupies: aren't they great!!!!!!
What is your position wrt abortion when it was due to rape? Is it asking very little of someone in that case?
It is unfortunate that children are sometime conceived from rape. But one thing is clear the child did not ask to be conceived. Two wrongs aren't going to make a right.
I doesn't look like there's much here to be gained from discussion with you. Later.
I KNOW there is nothing to be gained from interaction with you, Chester.
Thanks Bill! I just might. :)
I used to never post on anything but the Treasure Hunt boards. But even then I had heard tales of the jethro bodine boogeyman that lurked in these parts. My first actual experience with him was when he wandered into the shoot the breeze thread or maybe it was a treasure hunt thread and started an argument with Dal about how one should think about abortion all the time, even on Christmas Day (she was lamenting the Christmas sermon taking an anti-abortion stance).
At the time my first thought was, "What an obsessed nut!" I figured he was probably just like so many others I'd run into who seem to have self-esteem problems and try to make themselves feel better by using morality as crutch to claim superiority to others and then insult them to further try and make themselves feel better.
I believe I was wrong though. My impression of jethro now is actually quite different. I still don't agree with him, and I still don't much care for his caustic attitude, but I think his reputation otherwise is rather underserved.
Jethro believes that once conceived, the embryo is fully human. It is after all a human embryo, it does have a unique set of genes, and looking at a person's existence as measuring from their conception to their death isn't necessarily wrong. I believe there is a noteworthy difference between one who has been born and one who has not. Jethro doesn't. There's nothing I can do to prove his belief wrong. I can only disagree with it.
Now if someone does see the unborn as being as human as anyone else, I rather expect them to be against abortion. I expect that they would feel moral outrage at what amounts in their mind to the killing of innocents. It actually seems to me that jethro's arguments are in fact pretty logically consistent given his premise.
But actually the reason I'm writing this about him in particular is that he's actually impressed me with his willingness to take stances that can be both intriguing and unpopular. I found myself agreeing with most of what he said in the Civil War thread even though it runs counter to mainstream thought today. And even on a topic like bombing abortion clinics. He never said he was in favor it. He said he could see where someone might try and use as a defense that they were protecting the lives of others. It's kind of twisting the logic of self-defense, but I too can see where someone might try and make that case. It doesn't mean I'd support it as a viable option if I were anti-abortion, and I kind of doubt jethro would encourage it either. Although I suspect he does find it amusing to see what happens when people think he might.
I'm still going to disagree with jethro. I'm still going to argue with him. But I'm not going to believe his opinion is worthless.
I'll tell you what my position on abortion is.
I believe there is a big difference between a freshly conceived zygote and an embryo of several months. There is a big difference all through gestation from day to day, because development proceeds at a fast pace in the womb. There is a big difference between a newly born baby and a child of several years, and between a child and an adult.
Yes, all share a human genome, but what endows us with rights is not our genes, but our brains. It is our brains that allow us to feel, to imagine, to create and to love.
After all, we are not loathe to pull the plug on a patient in a terminal coma. A person in this state is completely dependent on others, and feels nothing. An early embryo is in a similar state. If not for the willingness of the mother to nourish and protect it, it will die. Its brain has not developed to any extent we would yet recognize as human. The difference between the patient and an unwanted embryo is that the patient has no imaginable future. However, the unwanted embryo also has no future without the intervention of someone willing to nourish and protect it. As long as we as a society can't take over the job for the mother, we can't force her to do so.
To say that she is responsible for the conception is a bit naive, too. In the case of rape, it is certainly not the case. And no method of contraception is flawless. And frankly, humans aren't perfect, and to expect perfect behavior from humans is hypocritical. Pushing "abstention" as the only sanctioned form of contraception is the absolute height of naivete, and will only serve to worsen the problem.
As for aborting later-stage fetuses, my position is that the mother's health should take precendence over the fetus, unless both can be saved safely. I don't believe in late-stage elective abortions. The longer a woman waits, the more the fetus' brain is developing and therefore the more human it is becoming.
I'm aware of the name calling, but I'm not terribly surprised by it given his position. I can understand the position that if you think an unborn child is no different from a born child, that anyone who would advocate killing innocent children (as he sees it) would of course be seen as evil, corrupt, or whatever other names he uses. That's why I don't take offense when he uses them, because his statement would be true if I agreed with his premise. But since I don't agree with his premise, I don't agree with his conclusions either that such statements apply to me. So I don't really pay much attention to those or let them bother me.
However, the unwanted embryo also has no future without the intervention of someone willing to nourish and protect it. As long as we as a society can't take over the job for the mother, we can't force her to do so. And why can't we? We supposedly pride ourselves on compassion for the helpless. Just because you think society should do the job and you feel society isn't wiling to do so does not support the alternative of death. Society should demand responsibility for those that conceive children.
To say that she is responsible for the conception is a bit naive, too. In the case of rape, it is certainly not the case. And no method of contraception is flawless. And frankly, humans aren't perfect, and to expect perfect behavior from humans is hypocritical. Pushing "abstention" as the only sanctioned form of contraception is the absolute height of naivete, and will only serve to worsen the problem. No one expects perfect behavior. But imperfect behavior also does not support killing unborn children.
fold wrote: The fact is Allison, that IF you disagree with Jethro on Abortion, you are immediately dismissed by him as corrupt, evil and less than Human.
fold you can agree with me and I would still dismiss you as corrupt, evil and less than Human!!!!
fold you can agree with me and I would still dismiss you as corrupt, evil and less than Human!!!!
And yet, fetuses are fully human.
I bet he enjoys all the attention he gets here, though. Probably the more outrageous his statements, the more attention he gets. Look, this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, but instead it becomes a discussion about him. I wonder if that's what drives him...
The religious sect connected to the company claiming it has produced the first human clone
Suppose this is true - they claim a 7lb cloned baby - will little boy bush want it aborted?
Good way to get Cheyney a new heart!!
And yet, fetuses are fully human.
Simple minds make simple statements. fold, I suppose is an adult. At least I believe he is living in an adult's body. He has had his choices and has become what he is. Unborn children haven't had that opportunity and they are innocent. I don't believe I have ever said that I believe all human life is equal. I wouldn't value the life of the Ted Bundy's of the world the same as others. I even think fold is higher on the chain than that! See fold, I can say something good about you!!!!
Feel the love!
bet he enjoys all the attention he gets here, though. Probably the more outrageous his statements, the more attention he gets. Look, this is supposed to be a discussion about abortion, but instead it becomes a discussion about him. I wonder if that's what drives him...
Nope, it isn't about me. It is about you and many others like you.