Oh, not even comparable. Fetuses kill far more women every year than dogs do.
So, is that wrong? Is that a bad thing incurred by the fetus in some malicious attempt to destory then one thing that can save its life, namely, their mother?
Hardly.
Hardly? Then the baby miracled itself inside the woman, no fault of the mother or father? If the baby is a parasite, then the parents have a responsibility for placing that baby in the womb to begin with. This isn't like going down to Mexico and you being ignorant of their water treatment capapbilities. Its more like someone telling that if you drink the water, you have a good chance of ingesting a parasite. And, uh, no one can claim ignorance on pregnancy. Everyone knows that if you engage in sexual activity, particularly, unprotected, that you have an excellent chance of becoming pregnant.
Not if they weren't having sex to get pregnant. If they were taking precautions to avoid pregnancy, and the fetus circumvents those precautions, then the fetus is trespassing unlawfully on another person's body soveriegnty.
How is it the fetus's fault that they were made???? How? Unlawfully? WTF? What are you talking about? The biological function for sex is to have children!!!! If you don't like it then evolve yourself the ability to procreate a choice.... otherwise, don't blame nature, and don't blame a child who has nothing to do with their parents inability to recognize their own responsibilities.
And even if they weren't - there's no legal principle that says you can't recind an invitation.
Because we are talking about murder, not recinding an invitation to a formal ball.
That's irrelevant, and the only reason that you would ask me that would be to use it as a personal atttack against me. The validity of my arguments has nothing to do with my aspirations for children. You should be addressing my arguments, not searching for ways to attack me personally.
No Crash, I don't need to attack you personally, just the views that you hold fast to. The only reason I ask is because, had you had children, you might have a different view. I used to be all for abortion, that is, until I understand what a fetus really is, and what abortion actually entails. See, I think the majority of pro-aborts have only a nominal intellectual acquaintence with what abortion actually is. And the industry plays on that ignorance and plays on the sympathies of men and women by trying to tell them that the big, bad pro-lifer's are out to take away their choices. They arent out to take away choices. They are out to stop infanticide. If it were really about the cute, unassuming word, "choice," then we would be against any choices.
They should change their laws. As it stands now, China isn't pro-choice either.
Well, if there is no absolute law, then they 'shouldn't' do anything because that's their choice, and who are you to get in the way of someone else's personal choice? ;}
But who gives a damn? I don't live in China and neither do you. We don't make their laws, and we're not subject to them.
I give a damn about humanity from all races, all ages, all cultures, and when someone goes rogue that undermines the whole of humanity, then its my moral obligation to speak up about it and not be a dumbfounded passerby, indifferent to it.
LOL! You realize that the only reason those laws exist in some states is to lay the groundwork for an attack on the right to an abortion?
Yes, it was a clever manipulation of the Right. You really can't understand that some women may actually want to concieve a child, and the offender that now murdered them both has taken both lives away from the husband/father?
That's how morally devoid the pro-life movement is, of course - they'll gladly saddle murderers with additional unfair charges - after all, who gives a shit about murderers - simply to establish a beachhead against abortion rights.
Well, if morals are absolute then that's merely your opinion, so who cares what you think?
My personal feelings about your state of mind are not relevant to the debate, just as whether or not you think I'm "depraved" has anything to do with mine. If you can't address my arguments on their own merits, then you have absolutely no place in this discussion and I urge you to bow out.
You aren't making any argument. You are making statements about your personal beliefs. But that brings me to my next question: When is a fetus allowed to be a human being? At birth? When the child shows cognizance? I think you could appreciate, for legal matters, when a baby gets to have unalienable rights like the rest of us.
Of course they tell you that. Why do you think they would conceal that fact? Of course, every death from the plague also happened in what is effectively a "third-world country", as well.
I said they would conceal it, becuase they do conceal it. The way you make it seem, women are dying left and right from complications all the time. I guess there is no need in pointing out how women die because of abortions or who are irreparaly maimed because of them.
It's far easier to get access to an effective, safe abortion for most women - although your peers are doing everything possible to prevent even that - and it's far safer, too.
How would you ever know Crash? You think Planned Parenthood broadcast's how many women die or are maimed from abortions?
No. The argument is that, because of the risk of crashing in a vehicle, no one should be forced to drive in one.
No one forces anyone to drive cars, they do it at their own risk. And no one told them they had to get pregnant, only that murder 'after-the-fact' is unacceptable.
The idea of "choice" really is difficult for you, isn't it?
Nope, it isn't. How you can not disassociate abortion and choice is the real problem. I might just be as inclined to kill everyone on EvC, only to turn it around and call it my "choice," instead of what it really is.
Like, it's all but impossible for you to concieve of a woman making choices about her own body, isn't it?
No, absolutely not. She has the choice to engage in sexual activity. That was her shining moment of choice. But, she has the choice to still abort a fetus. Let it be on her conscience if she so desires. The laws says that I can't murder anyone, but I still have the ability to choose to do so. She still has that right, if she chooses. Just don't put rose petals around and puupy dogs around a crime scene, so to speak.
I'm "glancing over" what is not relevant. Pro-choice doesn't mean forcing every woman to have an abortion. It means not forcing women to be pregnant.
No one is forcing them to pregnant, save the 1% of abortion that incur due to rape. By why make a horrible action to cover another horrible action? No one says that the mother of such an affront has to bear the rapists child. No one wants a mother who feels that she incapable of being a good mother to a child. Quite to the contrary. Adopt the child, and all parties are happy. The child gets to live like everyone else, the maternal mother does not have to be burdned by costs, and parents who can't concieve will recieve the child they always desired. Everybody wins in this scenario. Only the mother wins is yours.
Really? Can you name a single pro-life organization that has come out in favor of those contraceptive means?
What? Its my understanding that its really only Catholic-based organizations that have an aversion to contraceptives. I don't. They aren't killing a new life by doing so. I have no moral dilemma over it.
That has done any work at all to promote women's access to contraception? No? Then its hypocritical of you to hold up contraception as an alternative to abortion at the same time that you're working as hard as possible to prevent women from getting contraception.
How is that hypocrtical? The intelligent thing to do is make it so that parents can control when they get pregnant. What isn't, or what shouldn't be an option, is that when they fail, they get to kill a child. Please explain to me how that possibly could be construed as hypocrtical.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the pro-life side wants to prevent abortions. From the fact that they regularly oppose the avalibility of contraception in addition to abortion, we must conclude that they're much more interested in increasing the number of unsafe illegal abortions and unwanted pregnancies.
I have never, ever met another pro-life supporter to ever reject the notion of contraceptives. Never. And I've met alot. Does that mean that some don't agree with them? Yes, some do not agree with it. But, you know, that's their choice.
Your opinion, you mean. So maybe you shouldn't be tryng to force your opinion on other people?
No, you said that pro-lifer's were immoral. If they are immoral, then there has to first be a standard in place in order for someone to even be immoral.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
™ Version 4.2
