Abortion-should she have gotten the dealth penalty
- Thread starter bobwg
- Start date
I didn't answer your question because it is a stupid question that has nothing to do with whether murdering an innocent baby for the convenience of the guilty adults is wrong. That is why I am also not answering it now and won't be answering it in the future.
Translation: I don't have a response to what you have correctly stated so I'll divert to another subject to avoid acknowledging you were right.
Why...it is a valid question...where all of the kids going to go??
You anti abortion people wont answer the question. If you abolish abortion the # of children needing homes and food and hugs will go through the roof...
So if you are AGAINST abortion...what do we do with all the kids needing homes??
What you think people are just going to stop having sex?? Open your eyes...and be realistic...
I guess we will never see eye to eye...
Sent from my Etch-A-Sketch
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Many of the previous posters seem to think that the original OP is a testimony for The Pro Life " no exception" agenda when in fact it is a positive example of how the Right to Choose works in America.
The woman was conceived by a rape during a time when abortions were legal and available. The mother obviously made a choice to bring that child into this world. The "choice" had a positive outcome that should be celebrated. This is one excellent example that can help others in the same situation make a positive choice. Not by force of government but by good education and morals.
The woman was conceived by a rape during a time when abortions were legal and available. The mother obviously made a choice to bring that child into this world. The "choice" had a positive outcome that should be celebrated. This is one excellent example that can help others in the same situation make a positive choice. Not by force of government but by good education and morals.
Redefining an unborn "zygote" or "fetus" as "baby", "infant", "person", or "human being" for the expressed purpose of being able to label an abortion as "murder" is nothing more than renaming things to be pretty and acceptable in order to fit an agenda. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to accept the renaming of things from others, then you don't get to do your own renaming just because you think your renamings are superior to someone else's renamings. Otherwise, it's just pure hypocrisy.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
That was very well said...I only disagree that the OP in this forun was that well intentioned. The statement "for those that favor killing babies on demand" was very upsetting and rude in my opinion.
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
I don't know I was busy in the kitchen doing us women folk work!
)O( ~ Namaste ~ )O(
I would prefer...that the personal choice in this example from the OP, had a positive result...
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
cubansammich
Not a Member
Right on the money! Sadly, I fear your point will be misconstrued as "liberal garbage".
bobwg
Expert Expediter
Well if you dont favor killing babies on demand then it should not have been upsetting or rude to you in my opinion
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Well when someone doesn't use anything like
to indicate it was a joke it seems reasonable to question. She also used the after saying she would just go back in the kitchen which indicates that part of her statement was sarcastic and shows she really doesn't understand. Also notice how it was used again 2 more times and she said those were my words which again indicate she is applying that to an overall view of women.Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
Last edited:
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Yes those are my words about ABORTION being a women's rights issue rather than a view on a fetus being alive or not. You are taking those words and acting like I meant the entire women's rights issue is garbage apparently in a failed attempt to make a joke which is rather insulting.
Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
Probably will, since those who like (scratch that, NEED) to tell others what to do will dismiss it as something or another. The problem is, my comments are neither liberal or conservative, they are pragmatic and honest, two concepts that both liberals and conservatives have a real problem with. Those who are the most willing and forceful to tell others what to do will howl the loudest when they themselves are told what to do. By the same token, the louder someone screams "tolerance", the less of it they themselves will have towards others.
And there it comes back full circle to the question that can't get answered.
"When does life begin?". And when does it not?
That drives the arguments for those on both sides of the issue.
Do you force someone to do something, or do you not? And at what point and by whom is that decided? Very tough call when broke down to the simpliest of thoughts.
"When does life begin?". And when does it not?
That drives the arguments for those on both sides of the issue.
Do you force someone to do something, or do you not? And at what point and by whom is that decided? Very tough call when broke down to the simpliest of thoughts.
Just take drivers for example.....forced to comply to some regulations that have (in their opinion) no merits.
I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to say that life begins at conception, at least in the terms we can understand, but the conception of anything (life, an idea, whatever) is not the same as the birth of something. If that were the case, then the potential winning run on first would simply go ahead and be counted as a run on the scoreboard. Until a human is born, it is a potential human, a potential child, baby, person, take yer pick.
The question of, "When does life begin?", can only be answered once the question of, "What is life?" can be answered. And it's a far more complex question than people may think, especially to those who need quick and easy, simple answers. It's far easier to state what life isn't. There are certain types of clays and certain chemical compounds that will form, divide, and reshape themselves under certain conditions. Certain chemical reactions can create real, actual amino acids that make copies of themselves. Does that mean they are alive? This is dancing perilously close to man-made lifeforms, of creation itself. To many people, new man-made life forms mean new energy sources, environmental clean-up mechanisms and life-saving medicines. For others, such a breakthrough would mean understanding how life began on Earth by trying to recreate it. Still for others it will a shattering of long-held beliefs. For at least 30 centuries, thinkers ascribed the beginning of life to an extraterrestrial agency - they talked of the hand of God, the divine afflatus, the vital spark, or of "seeds" of life traveling through the cosmos. We are finally on the cusp of having a real, tangible understanding of what life is and how it can begin. That upsets a lot of people.
In the meantime, certain lifeforms are content to tell other lifeforms what to do, how to think, and how to live their lives.
Last edited: