It IS a baby plain and simple. Posted: 04-27-08 14:18pm
think on this: if a woman has an abortion,
she will go through life without that
child. IF she doesn't have an abortion, in
nine months there will be a child there.
In seven years, she will have a seven year
old. In fifty, her child will be fifty. If
she has an abortion, there is no child.
How can you say that is right and just?
And then also:
What if she brings the child into the
world only to neglect her? She won't feed
it or breastfeed it. Is that wrong?
Someone said that is wrong because she
chose to bring the child into the world;
so? doesn't she still have the right to do
what she wants with her body?
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-27-08 14:25pm
If she gives it up for adoption, it will
no longer be her child. If she dies, it
will no longer be her child. If the baby
miscarries naturally, there is no child.
There is potential for a child but many
things can go wrong.
Once you give birth to a child you have a
responsibility to provide care for that
child, or find someone else to. That's the
law. That's what happens the moment you
give birth to a child. Just like if she
chose to kill a living person, by neglect
she's doing the same thing to her living
born baby, both of which are illegal.
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1358 Location: ,
Thanks: 58
Thanked:3
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple. Posted: 04-27-08 16:48pm
jujujellybean
wrote:
think on this: if a woman
has an abortion, she will go through life
without that child. IF she doesn't have an
abortion, in nine months there will be a
child there. In seven years, she will have
a seven year old. In fifty, her child will
be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is
no child. How can you say that is right
and just?
Duh! I think that's kind of the point of
having an abortion, isn't it? Because you
don't want a child there? You just
realised this?
|
Jude-Love
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 727 Location: Williamstown, Kentucky USA
Posted: 04-27-08 17:40pm
This is all very incoherent to me....
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple. Posted: 04-28-08 10:19am
jujujellybean
wrote:
think on this: if a woman
has an abortion, she will go through life
without that child. IF she doesn't have an
abortion, in nine months there will be a
child there. In seven years, she will have
a seven year old. In fifty, her child will
be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is
no child. How can you say that is right
and just?
Because she doesn't want a child? Is
that hard to fathom?
|
jujujellybean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 133 Location: , US
Thanks: 0
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 14:00pm
Jude-Love
wrote:
This is all very incoherent
to me....
meaning...it doesn't matter if it kills a
child?
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 14:51pm
Hello!
I've been looking around here a little and
finally decided to register.
First: Why are you arguing semantics? The
unborn is what it is whether or not you
call it a baby, a child, or a fetus.
What exactly IS "it"?
1. Human. If you deny this, you're
ignoring the scientific facts.
2. Alive. Again, biological fact.
You kill a human when you abort. Whether
you consider it to be a person or not is
your own business. But it is a human and
it dies. It is not a developed human, but
it is a human.
What is it not?
1. Independent. Depending on gestational
stage.
That's about it. In many ways an early
unborn is very different from a born or
even a late-term. But the one key, the
most important difference is that at a
certain stage, the unborn goes from being
incapable of being independent to being
capable of this.
~~~
Moving on:
Your right to control your body ends where
someone else's body starts - the body of
another person. Choosing to neglect a born
child violates his bodily rights. He has a
right to eat. If you have chosen to be his
mother, then you have the responsibility
to care for him. You have chosen to give
your services to him until he is 18.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-28-08 14:52pm
jujujellybean
wrote:
meaning...it doesn't matter if it kills a
child?
This is a six week fetus.
If you call it a child, you might as well
call it an octogenarian.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 14:54pm
Useless semantics. Why don't you debate
the actual issue of abortion?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-28-08 15:54pm
cmyked
wrote:
Useless semantics. Why don't
you debate the actual issue of
abortion?
May I suggest lurking before posting such
a comment?
|
jujujellybean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 133 Location: , US
Thanks: 0
Thanked:4
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple. Posted: 04-28-08 16:34pm
oopoopoop
wrote:
jujujellybean
wrote:
think on this: if a woman
has an abortion, she will go through life
without that child. IF she doesn't have an
abortion, in nine months there will be a
child there. In seven years, she will have
a seven year old. In fifty, her child will
be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is
no child. How can you say that is right
and just?
Duh! I think that's kind of the point of
having an abortion, isn't it? Because you
don't want a child there? You just
realised
this?
No, I was just wondering if you all
admitted the plain fact it kills a child.
When I was debating with a PP worker and
gave this too her, she didn't respond but
her eyes got all shifty and she sort of
shrugged. Then she changed the topic.
Looks like she has a conscience.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 16:40pm
Birch
wrote:
cmyked
wrote:
Useless semantics. Why don't
you debate the actual issue of
abortion?
May I suggest lurking before posting such
a comment?
I already have lurked, for several days.
I've noticed a lot of useless arguing
about words, and not a lot of logical
debate about abortion. You guys always
seem to get stuck on one word. Baby,
parasite, etc. You let it completely rule
the debate instead of actually adhering to
the issue.
Face it: Pro-lifers use baby because it
has an emotional meaning and pro-choice
uses parasite for the exact same reason.
You're both wrong; but the name of the
unborn isn't important.
|
jujujellybean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 133 Location: , US
Thanks: 0
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 16:43pm
Reptar
wrote:
If she gives it up for
adoption, it will no longer be her child.
If she dies, it will no longer be her
child. If the baby miscarries naturally,
there is no child. There is potential for
a child but many things can go wrong.
[b]So? Those are all NATURAL thinsgs,
unless the mother is murdered or whatever,
sopmething like that. And it will still be
her biological child, it just won't be
legally. But it is wrong to kill the child
on purpose. I mean, if it gets run over by
a car on accident that isn't anyone's
fault, but if she goes in to have a knife
stuck up her so that her baby will die ON
PURPOSE that is quite different.[b/]
Once you give birth to a child you have a
responsibility to provide care for that
child, or find someone else to. That's the
law.
[b]Ok, I know. But what happened to 'it's
her body she can do what she wants?' that
argument went up in smoke really fast. So
she loses that because it is born
now?[b/]
That's what happens the moment you give
birth to a child. Just like if she chose
to kill a living person, by neglect she's
doing the same thing to her living born
baby, both of which are
illegal.
What if abortion were made illegal? Then
what would you say? Would it still be okay
for abortions to happen? Would it be wrong
then?
The fetus IS living person. It is alive,
it is a homo sapiens it just happens to be
in the earliest stages of its development.
It is a person.
per·son
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or
child.
2. a human being as distinguished from an
animal or a thing
And since child can be a human fetus:
child
1. a person between birth and full growth;
a boy or girl.
2. a son or daughter.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
therefore it does kill a living person.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple. Posted: 04-28-08 16:47pm
jujujellybean
wrote:
oopoopoop
wrote:
jujujellybean
wrote:
think on this: if a woman
has an abortion, she will go through life
without that child. IF she doesn't have an
abortion, in nine months there will be a
child there. In seven years, she will have
a seven year old. In fifty, her child will
be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is
no child. How can you say that is right
and just?
Duh! I think that's kind of the point of
having an abortion, isn't it? Because you
don't want a child there? You just
realised
this?
No, I was just wondering if you all
admitted the plain fact it kills a child.
When I was debating with a PP worker and
gave this too her, she didn't respond but
her eyes got all shifty and she sort of
shrugged. Then she changed the topic.
Looks like she has a
conscience.
Well the problem is that the mother won't
necessarily have the child even if she
does give birth, because it could be
adopted.
But instead of picking apart flaws in your
presentation, let's instead look at what
you actually meant.
If a viable pregnancy is not aborted,
chances are a child will be born. Let's
not what-if ourselves to death here. Juju
is making a very good point and trying to
pick apart every single exception to the
example is not going to help you. It is in
fact a tactic used by someone who doesn't
want to debate the actual issue presented
to them.
So if you don't abort, a baby normally
appears. That's her argument. She's trying
to get you to realise that an absence is
caused by abortion. Something that would
be there will not be.
You probably already know this and just
don't feel it is important; however, Juju
does feel this is important.
How about instead of picking apart her
post and going off on semantic tangents,
why don't you suck it up and confront her
actual proposition?
|
jujujellybean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 133 Location: , US
Thanks: 0
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 16:49pm
Birch
wrote:
jujujellybean
wrote:
meaning...it doesn't matter if it kills a
child?
This is a six week fetus.
If you call it a child, you might as well
call it an
octogenarian.
I read a story where a man was horrible
mangled after a grenade went off in his
hand. his wife couldn't recognize him, his
face was gone, at least half of it. he
didn't look like a man, yet he was. Any
comments? and some people can't feel
either, so don't say a fetus can't feel so
it doesn't matter. Neither can this little
girl; is it ok to kill her?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
/6379795/
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 16:51pm
jujujellybean
wrote:
Reptar
wrote:
If she gives it up for
adoption, it will no longer be her child.
If she dies, it will no longer be her
child. If the baby miscarries naturally,
there is no child. There is potential for
a child but many things can go wrong.
[b]So? Those are all NATURAL thinsgs,
unless the mother is murdered or whatever,
sopmething like that. And it will still be
her biological child, it just won't be
legally. But it is wrong to kill the child
on purpose. I mean, if it gets run over by
a car on accident that isn't anyone's
fault, but if she goes in to have a knife
stuck up her so that her baby will die ON
PURPOSE that is quite different.[b/]
Once you give birth to a child you have a
responsibility to provide care for that
child, or find someone else to. That's the
law.
[b]Ok, I know. But what happened to 'it's
her body she can do what she wants?' that
argument went up in smoke really fast. So
she loses that because it is born
now?[b/]
That's what happens the moment you give
birth to a child. Just like if she chose
to kill a living person, by neglect she's
doing the same thing to her living born
baby, both of which are
illegal.
What if abortion were made illegal? Then
what would you say? Would it still be okay
for abortions to happen? Would it be wrong
then?
The fetus IS living person. It is alive,
it is a homo sapiens it just happens to be
in the earliest stages of its development.
It is a person.
per·son
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or
child.
2. a human being as distinguished from an
animal or a thing
And since child can be a human fetus:
child
1. a person between birth and full growth;
a boy or girl.
2. a son or daughter.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
therefore it does kill a living
person.
homicide is the killing of a person. If
the fetus were a person, then abortion
would be homicide. Abortion is not
homicide, however -- Not by law (your
personal feelings may disagree). So a
fetus is not a person as defined by law.
Strangely enough, it's only "not a person"
when the mother wants to kill it. When she
gets murdered by someone else, suddenly
it's "double homicide". What's the logic
in that? There isn't any. Either the law
says it is a person or the law says it
isn't. Right now it's very contradictory.
Word filter? What? I don't have any bad
words...
edit: Oh, I see. Murd3r is considered a
"bad" word. That's a little silly.
|
jujujellybean
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 133 Location: , US
Thanks: 0
Thanked:4
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple. Posted: 04-28-08 16:53pm
Birch
wrote:
jujujellybean
wrote:
think on this: if a woman
has an abortion, she will go through life
without that child. IF she doesn't have an
abortion, in nine months there will be a
child there. In seven years, she will have
a seven year old. In fifty, her child will
be fifty. If she has an abortion, there is
no child. How can you say that is right
and just?
Because she doesn't want a child? Is
that hard to
fathom?
No, but terribly terribly sad that because
of what she WANTS a life and beating heart
should have to be ended.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-28-08 16:55pm
It's not illegal. And it's obviously been
made legal for a reason. You can apply
your ridiculous statement to anything.
What if sleeping in a bed were made
illegal, would it then be wrong? No, and
that's why it's not illegal.
And yes she does lose the right to kill by
neglect once the baby is born. That's the
law. I don't know how other I can explain
that to you. Once you choose to go ahead
with a pregnancy and you choose to give
birth and you have an INDIVIDUAL, it is
your duty to take care of the baby and
give it adequate support.
person
1. a human being regarded as an
individual
individual
1. single; separate
funny, I can find dictionary definitions
that both back up my beliefs and the law.
Abortion is OKAY. It's not great but it's
certainly better than the alternative in
many cases. The law agrees with me. The
law isn't changing anytime soon, and
hasn't changed in a long time. Once you
gain a bit of perspective, you may
understand this.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 16:59pm
jujujellybean
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
jujujellybean
wrote:
meaning...it doesn't matter if it kills a
child?
This is a six week fetus.
If you call it a child, you might as well
call it an
octogenarian.
I read a story where a man was horrible
mangled after a grenade went off in his
hand. his wife couldn't recognize him, his
face was gone, at least half of it. he
didn't look like a man, yet he was. Any
comments? and some people can't feel
either, so don't say a fetus can't feel so
it doesn't matter. Neither can this little
girl; is it ok to kill her?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
/6379795/
For me it's not just the ability to feel
pain that matters. Unborn also become
capable of breathing and of thinking at
specific stages too. This critical
development is done by the 27th week in
most unborn so it is at this stage where I
feel abortion becomes unethical, because
the unborn is capable of surviving
independently of the mother.
A premie born at this stage will be fought
for night and day. How can you say it is
ok to abort a perfectly healthy fetus from
a healthy mom at this stage? You can't,
unless you are shallowly trying to defend
killing.
|
cmyked
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 294
Thanks: 50
Thanked:4
Posted: 04-28-08 17:01pm
Juju (and anyone here) -- I know I'm new,
but I'd suggest not bothering to reply to
people if they're just playing with words.
They're derailing your topic and spouting
nonsense. You want a logical debate about
abortion; you don't want DictionaryWarz.
Is
that hard to fathom?
