Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

It IS a baby plain and simple. (Page 1)

User Profile
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?
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied April 27th, 2008
Experienced User
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 27th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
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?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 27th, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
This is all very incoherent to me....
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
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? Confused Is that hard to fathom?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Jude-Love wrote:
This is all very incoherent to me....


meaning...it doesn't matter if it kills a child?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Useless semantics. Why don't you debate the actual issue of abortion?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
cmyked wrote:
Useless semantics. Why don't you debate the actual issue of abortion?


May I suggest lurking before posting such a comment? Laughing
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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? Laughing

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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
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?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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/
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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.


Murder is the killing of a person. If the fetus were a person, then abortion would be murder. Abortion is not murder, 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
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? Confused 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 28th, 2008
Experienced User
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?