Too bad it's NOT a person yet then. So according to your definition, no murdering has been done.

All I can say is learn to read.
I already said, "He considers the unborn baby to be a person."
Which would be murder.

You know that whole argument where the girl goes "things should be equal!" and then they're like "oh yeah we're not guys and we have babies so we're actually not equal"?

Well it applies to guys too. We really don't have any choice in whether or not a girl keeps a child, but if it's born we do have to care for it.

Guys and girls are not equal, never will be.

You reckon the dead babies will have a good case against the abortionists for robbing them of maybe as much as 80 years of living on Judgement Day?

Judgement Day? I love that movie.

If the pro-abortionists aren't killing the babies for the heck of it, or for health concerns then does'nt Luklaadvocate's idea of benefits for the mothers weaken the arguments about economic position? And if you fear that the baby will be emotionally or physically unsafe with you, give it up for adoption? there are a whole lot of people who are willing to love your unwanted mistake. =/
Can the pro-abortionists not attempt to devalue the life of the fetus for the sake of their argument? It's just a human baby, plain and simple. 18 years and several babies of your own later, you aren't completely developed. Is a tadpole not a frog? the point is, uninterrupted, that fetus could become the president, or the prime minister, or the guy that cures viruses, but we'll never know, you " gladly shanked" that "clump of cells"(wth is this? cancer?) out of you.

~+ Bear +~ wrote:

Too bad it's NOT a person yet then. So according to your definition, no murdering has been done.

So the fetus isn't human?

When does it become a person? Does is magically become a person as it passes through the birth canal?

When it can live without absolutely needing to be in the womb

One would think that as the child is totally helpless a sense of moral responsibility would mean more support and help for your unborn brother is called for.

I have to agree with this. =/ +rep

That's irrelevant, babies don't need to be in a womb to be born.
We've had test-tube babies. They were never in a womb.

plax77 wrote:

When it can live without absolutely needing to be in the womb

So being human involves the capability of being biologically independent of the mother? That ideology can easily be stretched to include the idea that in order to be human, an organism must be capable of living on his or her own, without outside help; such as in the case of a newborn. I fail to see much differentiation between the two.

Do we HAVE to agree on everything?
Jesus.
Hahaha. (:

I'm not calling it a child/unborn brother... So your argument makes no sense.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, hypothetically speaking if I got a girl pregnant, I'm not sure I'd want her to have an abortion, I wouldn't want her to.

I really can't choose a certain side to this argument though, I believe under certain circumstances it might be in the best interest of the mother and baby that could have possibly been born to not be brought into this world.

I feel that there are exceptions for abortion such as rape, those who are in extremely poverty stricken areas, can't support a baby in general, and I hate to say it but a baby that mighty be very ill and mentally handicap to a certain point where there's no hope of happiness for the child, no ability to experience life. Why bring a child onto this planet to have them suffer?

Blur wrote:

And if you fear that the baby will be emotionally or physically unsafe with you, give it up for adoption

If it came down to it and I had to get rid of the child it would be by adoption. The thing about adoption is, most people fail to realize that they're so over packed and in some cases it's not in the best interest of the child. Foster homes and so forth, the a lot of children are neglected and don't live the lives people assume they do, it's not always a pretty picture. Some children or teenagers are never adopted.

There can be a case stated for either side in my opinion, I certainly do not agree with the girls who have unprotected sex and receive several abortions due to their ignorance or those who decided to have unprotected sex in general and are shocked by pregnancy. I understand that sometimes mistakes can happen but if you're choosing to have sex, you know the risk.

A lot of people would argue that a fetus isn't a baby/human until a certain stage of development.

Blur wrote:

If the pro-abortionists aren't killing the babies for the heck of it, or for health concerns then does'nt Luklaadvocate's idea of benefits for the mothers weaken the arguments about economic position? And if you fear that the baby will be emotionally or physically unsafe with you, give it up for adoption? there are a whole lot of people who are willing to love your unwanted mistake. =/

The only problem here is the point I made earlier in the topic - the "care" issue doesn't start when the baby is born, it starts when it is conceived. If you're forcing everyone to go through pregnancy, I'd assume that not everyone is going to do it in a healthy way, unfortunate as it is. It kind of builds on Cade's point too, since an unhealthy pregnancy can resort in all sorts of illnesses or handicaps. Even if you're going the adoption route, it's still 9 vital months of care and attention.

the point is, uninterrupted, that fetus could become the president, or the prime minister, or the guy that cures viruses, but we'll never know, you " gladly shanked" that "clump of cells"(wth is this? cancer?) out of you.

Do you believe that what someone accomplishes in their life is determined when they're born, or before they're born? Or do you believe in fate at all? If there was fate, would it not be "fate" that the baby was aborted?

Everyone could become the president or someone who discovers a cure for the common cold. I don't think that as Barack was chilling in his mother's womb, something was just like "yeah, he's gonna be president one day." I know it's kind of another debate entirely, but does that not imply that we technically don't really have a choice as to who our president or PM is?

Yes, by aborting you're cutting off the potential that baby had, but it's not like we would have discovered a cure for AIDS or the common cold by now had people never had abortions.

I'm just saying I believe in potential, and choices.

Right, but while you could technically force someone not to have an abortion, you can't force them to choose to have a healthy pregnancy. I wish it wasn't the case, but even people who want to have kids do dangerous things when they're pregnant, so I can't imagine someone who doesn't want one would be much better. It's just speculation, though - of course everyone wouldn't be like that.

Blur wrote:

the point is, uninterrupted, that fetus could become the president, or the prime minister, or the guy that cures viruses, but we'll never know, you " gladly shanked" that "clump of cells"(wth is this? cancer?) out of you.

You could use that same logic in favor of abortion, considering the fetus may very well be the next Hitler or Stalin.

Generally speaking, if a women is forced to take care of a child she doesn't want, it's quite plausible that she won't give that child the best upbringing possible; that child may very well end up living in a dysfunctional family. Consequently, the likelihood of that child being a parasite on society is greater than the likelihood of that child eventually finding a cure for cancer.

Blur wrote:

If the pro-abortionists aren't killing the babies for the heck of it, or for health concerns then does'nt Luklaadvocate's idea of benefits for the mothers weaken the arguments about economic position? And if you fear that the baby will be emotionally or physically unsafe with you, give it up for adoption? there are a whole lot of people who are willing to love your unwanted mistake. =/
Can the pro-abortionists not attempt to devalue the life of the fetus for the sake of their argument? It's just a human baby, plain and simple. 18 years and several babies of your own later, you aren't completely developed. Is a tadpole not a frog? the point is, uninterrupted, that fetus could become the president, or the prime minister, or the guy that cures viruses, but we'll never know, you " gladly shanked" that "clump of cells"(wth is this? cancer?) out of you.

I really don't care what they could have been. Like I said, I'm not going through childbirth for something I loath.