Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Well it a good thing your money isn't paying for abortions then. Also it was already decided on, and its legal. If you don't like abortions, don't get one.
I have a feeling your hesitation to killing people doesn't extend to the military though.
It actually is. I pay taxes and Planned Parenthood gets substantial Federal Aid. Did you miss that part?
With respect to the military, I have a problem with unjust killings. If, tomorrow, we invaded France just because, I would have a major problem with it. If the military deliberately targeted civilians and didn't do everything reasonably possible to avoid collateral damage, I would have a problem with it. Pushing Saddam back in the Gulf War, I don't have a problem with.
Blackjack200 said:That's funny, I don't see the words "child" or "baby" anywhere in that definition. But then again, I'm not a crazypants pro lifer either.
Here, let me post it again and put the relevant terms in bold to make it easier.
"a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born"
If someone refers to you as an adult (which I am assuming you are), does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a child, does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a 'fetus', does that negate the fact that you are a human being?
eskimospy said:That's pretty good. 'It should only be up for a vote if the current outcome is one I don't agree with.'
A woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is a right protected by the Constitution. You're welcome to try and change the Constitution if you want, but you will fail.
I'm not sure how you derived that from, "This is a Constitutional Representative Republic". If there is an issue I support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to support it. Conversely, if there is an issue that I do not support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to repeal it. This is actually how the government works.
And despite what you said, the Constitution actually doesn't mention abortion at all. The courts may have set precedent that abortion might be applied under a particular amendment, but that isn't at all the same. Why would I need to change the Constitution when people like you didn't change it to define a 'right to an abortion' in the first place?
eskimospy said:You think something becomes your business because you think it's immoral? You might want to rethink that.
If parent is arguing with a child and he/she decides to take out a gun and shoot said child, I'm assuming, by your logic, that each and every person who witnessed the event should completely and totally ignore it since the act in its entirety doesn't affect them at all. Your approach to determining when to stand up for something doesn't seem to be valid.
eskimospy said:A fetus does not meet the legal definition of a person as it pertains to abortion. The fetus has no legal right not to be aborted.
Additionally, trying to say that everything from an embryo to a fetus to a newborn are all humans at different stages of development is not useful in the terms of this discussion. As has been gone over here many times, fertilized embryos are obviously not people, and no person actually believes they are. You are free to decide that something meets your personal standard of personhood at some point, but you aren't free to impose it on others.
The point at which the embryo is fertilized, despite what some arbitrary judges say in a court, is when it becomes a human embryo - that is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. An unfertilized egg will not spontaneously begin to grow, whereas a fertilized egg is already growing into a person.
The species of a creature simply does not change regardless of where a given creature is in it's development. If it is a human embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Human. If it is a bear embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Bear.
thraashman said:It's weird that you think forcing women into subjugation is moral. It's in fact sick as fuck that you think that.
Not that it would matter, but (aside from cases of rape which we are not addressing here) did the woman just spontaneously get pregnant, or did they choose to engage in an act of procreation?
As to the 'sick' comment, I assume, by your logic, it isn't at all sickening to you listen to the technician crush an aborted child's skull and ask if they can sell the brain.
Certainly, saving a child's life should take precedence over 9 months of inconvenience brought on directly by the actions of the mother (again, except in the case of rape which we aren't discussing here). There is even this great concept called adoption where a woman who, ultimately, didn't want the child, can give the child away and be absolved of all responsibility.
-GP