Legalizing murder of abortionists
- Thread starter slant
- Start date
It is not a baby. It is a fetus. Legally, medically, scientifically, it is a fetus. It seems like you are getting overly emotional about this.
There is no way you can compare it to killing a three year old. It is not the same thing AT ALL. In no way, shape or form am I condoning killing a three year old because it reminds you of someone you hate or you are tired of caring for the child, and I am completely baffled as to how you can even consider those things to be even NEAR the same thing.
For your information also, people do not only get D&Cs when they aborting a fetus. That medical procedure is often needed when a woman is going through a miscarriage, to get out all of the tissue.
i know i'm getting to emotional, but i really don't understand the difference between an unborn 'fetus' and a new born baby. and if not being fully developed means its ok to discard the 'fetus', then why isn't it ok to kill mentally handicapped people, or blind people, or even a pre mature baby?
Mentally handicapped people, blind people, premature babies.. they've all been born. When I speak about aborting a fetus, I am referring to one that is less than 12-16 weeks gestation. This is different from killing a blind person, for example, because a blind person can exist independent of their mother. A fetus of this age (in the first trimester) is attached to its mother by the placenta and umbilical cord. It cannot survive independently of the mother - its health is dependent on her health - and so I don't think it can really be counted as a completely separate life at this stage.
I do not believe in infanticide.
yes but how is the unborn different from the born? the born were at one time not yet born. so whats the difference besides that?
I've just explained my thoughts on that. A fetus which is being aborted in the first trimester cannot survive independently, if you took it out of the womb it would definitely die, it's health depends on its mothers heath. That is the key difference to me, and why it makes zero sense to compare it to a blind person, for example.
but there are handicapped people who would not survive on their own. and i don't see how just because it can't live on its own that makes it inhuman
Can't you see how a handicapped person who is born and is alive is different to a 10 week old fetus that, outside of the womb, would certainly die?
Clearly this debate is pointless because neither of us really get what the other is saying. I simply cannot understand your opinion that aborting a fetus is the same as killing a three year old because you don't like how it looks.
i didn't say because of how it looks, i said because it reminds you of someone you don't like (that can actually be a reason why parents abuse their children, stupid as that seems).
i don't think its a fetus. it is alive, just not born yet. i don't see how it can go from fetus to baby.
i hate to argue..this is a touchy subject. i like to be open minded and hear other points of view, buts its hard to listen and not fight back when you feel strongly about something. i'm sure you know what i mean. i think i'm going to go cool off. no hard feelings?
i don't think its a fetus. it is alive, just not born yet. i don't see how it can go from fetus to baby.
i hate to argue..this is a touchy subject. i like to be open minded and hear other points of view, buts its hard to listen and not fight back when you feel strongly about something. i'm sure you know what i mean. i think i'm going to go cool off. no hard feelings?
Of course not. Just as I have no hard feelings towards people who are Christians, even though I do not believe in God.
Part of me wonders if the legislature is trying to make a point instead of actually getting passed.
I'm completely confused how someone could classify a fetus as not a human being. Humans continue to change in physical form and ability all their lives. The argument that a fetus is just a cluster of cells also kind of ridiculous, you at this very moment are a cluster of cells.
I'm completely confused how someone could classify a fetus as not a human being. Humans continue to change in physical form and ability all their lives. The argument that a fetus is just a cluster of cells also kind of ridiculous, you at this very moment are a cluster of cells.
Not you specifically, it's just the most common argument I've heard. The logic being that if it isn't human yet it doesn't have rights.
So does a Fetus(saying that it is indeed a person) have rights?
I'm not directing this at you wifey, so don't freak out, this just kind of reminded me of my opinion on this.
I don't get how like what I was never very clear on is when the baby is a fetus who has custody of the kid? And like...I am so very confused about that.
no, no, I know I just haven't been in any debates on this forum for a while. I figured I'd jump on in.
Also,does anyone think this is less of a "I want to kill doctors"move and more of a "I want people's attention move"?(the bill that is)
No clue. I was just appalled at seeing that, I didn't understand how anyone could jump to that conclusion unless they were extremely emotionally affected by something, of which case, they shouldn't be creating bills in moments of such high emotions, they ought to let their head clear before making decisions like that.
Oddly enough, this isn't the strangest/dumbest thing I've seen in the news recently... Like what seems to be the general consensus on this thread, I doubt the thing will get passed. If it does, it'll probably be ruled as unconstitutional and revoked from law fairly quickly...
Man, the U.S. is off to a great start legislatively speaking. I wonder how they'll top this one... I don't think renewing the PATRIOT ACT would top this...
Man, the U.S. is off to a great start legislatively speaking. I wonder how they'll top this one... I don't think renewing the PATRIOT ACT would top this...
Because we're not a fetus. By my own moral definition, I am a human being. a 3 month old fetus is not, at least not by my standards. it's a human fetus. there's a difference. I regard the act of abortion as a necessary part of society.
you're moral definition may well be different. however this is just the point. Your moral standing says you're against abortions. fine. don't have one. I'm not forcing you. but the moment you force me not to have one, you're forcing me to subscribe to a set of beliefs and morals that are not mine.
it doesn't make it inhuman, that's a silly statement. It makes it a human fetus with the potential of becoming a fully developed human, at least by my beliefs it does. you believe differently, and that's fine, but don't force others into some form of moral standpoint that they don't hold.
and...can we stop using blind people as an example? I keep looking over my shoulder to see if there's some guy in a uniform with an axe trying to assess if I'm human or not...lol!
I don't think it is, at least not in the sense that a viable human being needs to be. you take away the mother and it doesn't have life. It's still human, it has all the necessary things in order to become a human. But at the exact same time, it's not the same as you, or me or whoever else is looking at this thread.
I think that a child that is kept beyond the cut off point for an abortion should have rights. However when it comes down to who's rights are more important, the mother or the fetus, I believe that since the mother is most definitely a fully developed human by everyone's viewpoint, the law should protect her rights. It is her body, her body that is necessary for keeping the child alive, and it should be her choice if she wants to make that commitment.
I agree. There are just too many people who feel that abortions should be legal for this to pass. It's not a clear cut thing.