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.

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?

This is all very incoherent to me....

Because she doesn't want a child? Is that hard to fathom?

meaning...it doesn't matter if it kills a child?

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.

This is a six week fetus.



If you call it a child, you might as well call it an octogenarian.

Useless semantics. Why don't you debate the actual issue of abortion?

May I suggest lurking before posting such a comment?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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/

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.

No, but terribly terribly sad that because of what she WANTS a life and beating heart should have to be ended.

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.

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.

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.