If you want to play the blame game, then we didn't kill our child, the doctor performing the abortion did.
I think people who get assassins to do the job for them are considered to be equally complicit!
If you want to play the blame game, then we didn't kill our child, the doctor performing the abortion did.
- they cannot feel pain @20 weeks or whatever, they can once bornWhy would anybody who is perfectly happy with the idea of killing a "Defective" child because it is "Defective" (Or otherwise unsatisfactory,and even considers the concept to be a "Human Right") before it is physically born be all squeamish about doing so after it is born?
- they cannot feel pain @20 weeks or whatever, they can once born
- they have sentience once born, but not at current abortion limits
- there are alternatives to forcing the mother to give up her body to support the baby once born. No-one's bodily autonomy is compromised to keep the baby alive.
Are all very good practical reasons.
Also, I suspect the poster you quoted has never carried a baby to term.
Being able to empathise in this instance may help understand the difference to the mother (to a much greater extent, but also the father) from an emotional point of view between aborting an early stage life versus killing a baby.
Orionaut is 60 something, and never mentioned having kids, so I'd be surprised if he's even held a baby.
"Assassins" . . . "Killing - unwanted - children"I think people who get assassins to do the job for them are considered to be equally complicit!
You're quite held on your beliefs of when a 'child' begins to exist.Which gives me a degree of objectivity lacking by others perhaps?
Many "Pro-Abortionists" want to be able to kill unwanted "children" without thinking about themselves as "child-killers".
In order to get away with this contradiction they rationalise the position by kidding themselves that as long as the children are still very small or have not yet reached certain (And often arbitrary) developmental stages then they are not children at all.
Maybe we should ban masturbation as you are killing millions every time you have a ****.
Women should be able to choose whatever the circumstances.
You're quite held on your beliefs of when a 'child' begins to exist.
Are you saying that as soon as sperm meets egg it's a child? Would you say some viability has to exist in the DNA that means a healthy person would result from that DNA?(as some egg and sperm combos cannot create a person due to mutation)
Do you believe pulling life support from someone without brain function is murder? Just from the point of view that you can't say a medical advance which could return brain function to them wouldn't be created in their lifetime
I wasn't meaning to create any sort of trap with the question, but I see that the use of 'murder' was a bit of leading in the question.I am saying that once an egg is fertilized, you have a new and identifiable individual as represented by its unique DNA makeup..
What happens to that individual after fertilization depends on Luck, Nature and the actions of others.
(And yes, I know that "Most" fertilized Eggs never make it more than a couple of days or so. the conception/pregnancy ratio for humans isn't very good. Successful pregnancy in Humans is relatively rare. We are not a particularly fertile species on the whole)
If the action of others is to chose to halt that individuals development by performing an abortion then that action represents a killing.
I am not opposing Abortion on any sort of ethical or religious grounds. I just want Abortion advocates to admit to themselves what it actually is that they are advocating.
Once that is done the arguments concerning when and under what circumastances it is acceptable to kill a child can move on.
The current situation and arguments grates with me.
1) Killing children is wrong
2) But I want to kill (Abort) this one
3) Fine, we will just redefine it as not-a-child and then you are free to do as you wish with a clear conscience.
Almost all the debate seems to relate to the precise T&C's surrounding the "definition" regarding what does or does not constitute a Human being and away from whether or not it is acceptable to kill unwanted Children.
(Or even unwanted Adults, see below)
I am going to call "Straw Man" on that question on the grounds that, at no time, have I stated that Abortion=Murder
Simply that Abortion=Killing
(And that not all Killings are necessarily ethically wrong)
Perhaps you might wish to rephrase it?
Remove a 6 week old "child" from it's mother's womb and see how well it gets on unaided compared to a 5 year old "child", then come back and tell us how you can't understand why one "child" died extremely quickly and the other hasn't.Which gives me a degree of objectivity lacking by others perhaps?
Many "Pro-Abortionists" want to be able to kill unwanted "children" without thinking about themselves as "child-killers".
In order to get away with this contradiction they rationalise the position by kidding themselves that as long as the children are still very small or have not yet reached certain (And often arbitrary) developmental stages then they are not children at all.
And all your doing is dumping full responsibility onto women to not get pregnant while removing their right to have a say if an unwanted pregnancy happens. Removing a woman's right to have an abortion, as in Alabama, is removing the right to her own body. Once an egg is fertilised, the state/men have zero obligation to provide financial or emotional support for that woman
Alabama Department of Human resources said:Child Support Enforcement Division
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE or IV-D) Program is a joint Federal & State effort to help families establish paternity (when necessary), obtain orders for payment of child support, and secure compliance with child support court orders. One of the goals of the Child Support Enforcement Program is to help families achieve self-sufficiency because the non-payment of child support is a key factor contributing to the impoverishment of children.
yet want to bestow full human rights onto that fetus while it's in the womb in the absurd belief that its somehow a "right to life" matter. Which leads us nicely on to body autonomy....
I need a kidney transplant or else I will die.
You are the only match.
Do I have a right to that kidney, or is that kidney yours?
Does my right to life take precedence over your bodily rights?
Similarly, does the fetus have the right to use the mother's womb if the mother wants an abortion?
The fetus has no more right to use that organ to sustain its life against the mother's wishes just like I have no legal right to your kidney in order to sustain my life.
Which is true but only when the baby has been born - there is no mention of payments during pregnancy.Demonstrably false
And you pay less tax to the IRS with children in the US due to the child tax credit.
So father's, in Alabama can be held financially responsible for a child which they may have a had no say (other than having sex with a woman who may have lied to them) in deciding whether it was born or not. Once born the woman can claim relief from federal taxes paid to the IRS on account of having a child .
Where have I mentioned aborting full term babies? Never.Again demonstrably false I don't want to grant full human rights to a fetus. There are very few circumstances where, as a citizen of a country like the US or UK, you can lawfully kill another human. I don't want to grant full human rights to all fetuses at all stages of development.
I would suggest that allowing for the termination of a healthy full term fetus that poses no elevated risk to its mother would be reprehensible.
Maybe you disagree and if so I suggest you should state so?
Moving backwards from that point I would suggest term limits for when an abortion can be carried out and in what circumstances and also an insistence that any abortions should have to carried out on suitable licenced premises to avoid unnecessary suffering and or risk to the mother and fetus.
We already have that test in the UK (which isn't the topic at hand) and a pregnant woman can have an abortion even if there is no risk to her or the fetus. Like I said in the bit you've quoted and relating directly to the Alabama law, this boils down to the rights of unborn fetus to use the mother's womb taking precedent over her right to terminate the pregnancy.I really don't know what point you imagine your making here? In the case of a pregnant woman you are balancing the rights of the woman vs the rights of the fetus with a view to deciding whether the fetus can be killed or not. I would suggest the test is reliant on the degree of development of the fetus, any substantive risk it poses for its mother and if the pregnacy continues the likelihood that the fetus can be delivered and be expected to survive.
An abortion is legally defined as the termination of a pregnancy, not as killing a fetus. Asserting otherwise is sophistry disguised as emotional blackmail.Me not giving you my kidney, even if you require it to survive, is not a case of me killing you. Aborting a fetus is killing that life. That's the difference so your attempted comparison is risible.
Like i have already pointed out your comparison is risible. The mother can give birth and both she and her child can expect to survive and life otherwise full and healthy lives. The alternative is the mum gets to decide to kill a human life. Again me not giving you an organ, even if you need it to live, is not me killing you. Killing a fetus is killing a human life.
Where have I mentioned aborting full term babies? Never.
The question is to do with rights over your own body and the suspension of those rights for women while pregnant.
An abortion is legally defined as the termination of a pregnancy, not as killing a fetus. Asserting otherwise is sophistry disguised as emotional blackmail.
death
/dɛθ/
noun
- the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
killing
/ˈkɪlɪŋ/
noun
- 1.
an act of causing death, especially deliberately.