Seriously.
Can someone explain to me the thought process which enables one to describe an unborn human as not an unborn human?
I mean, when it leaves the womb, it's a born human, a baby.
How then is it not a baby, a human, when it is inside the womb?
Is there a point at which it is definitely going to born human, before which it might be born as a chicken, or a rock?
It's not a fetus, it's an unborn human.
Once this is admitted, every argument for infanticide -baby murder- falls apart.
Guess that's why they call it a "fetus".
Prohibiting abortion is no more anti-liberty than prohibiting murder.
Jefferson said:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
Do we not all have the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
This is not a "women's rights" issue. It is an "unborn human rights" issue.
I want no part of a "liberty" that denies these things to a human before he or she is born.
So...how is an unborn human not a human?
An unborn baby is a fetus as you as a born baby become a human resource.
ReplyDeleteIt is all word games. And deadly word games at that.
We have generations of sheople who hear words, but don't understand their meanings.
I must say that your thoughts have influnced my ideas, specifically I have always considered this 'issue' as a womans right issue but not anymore. Sadly but probably predictably in the USofA killing (as morally reprehensible as it is) has become defined by who we kill and within what context without regard for the moral ramifications. Ergo, we have become a nation (for the most part) barren of moral individuals not willing to make decissions based on either character or 'doing the right thing' beyound their personal preferences.
ReplyDeleteDecades ago, in my first iteration of college, I studied biochemistry through my senior year. About that time, Roe-v-Wade had happened and people were trying to decide when human life begins. On my recent biological background it just seemed obvious that it had to be at conception.
ReplyDeleteIf you arbitrarily say it's at some particular time (3rd trimester, say) based on your ability to keep a premature baby alive, you're simply saying your technology determines when human life begins, and we keep pushing that frontier backwards.
So it's always a human. They can not be anything else. And the first right of any human of any age is to life.
Worker says, "...we have become a nation (for the most part) barren of moral individuals not willing to make decissions based on either character or 'doing the right thing' beyound their personal preferences..."
ReplyDeleteI agree. Our 'moral' decisions are all being based on individual whim and maintaining irresponsible behavior.
If not, how could anyone condone murdering babies yet decry others being murdered by criminal act? How can they not support wars that kill thousands, or deny a nation's right to genocide?
Seriously, if they're going to kill, at least be consistent about it.
And before you abort that baby, please: tell me that you've got the courage to stand in place and let me have just one shot at you. Just one shot.
Shy III
Abortion in America is the only proof I offer to the need for moral absolutes in society. Once you twist logic to the point of justifying the murder of children, you are now capable of any evil, even if you don't call it such.
ReplyDeleteIts simple folks...if a woman wants it, its a baby. If she don't, its a blob of flesh. Simple! Although ....ain't none of us nothing but a overgrown "fetus"...
ReplyDeleteOne cannot justify it AP. They just kill anyway.
ReplyDeleteMy firstborn son was born at 25 weeks. That 3 months too early. He fit in my hand, literally. From his little head to his little rear end, he fit INSIDE my hand.Smaller than the end of my fingers to the bottom of my palm. He didn't look like a blob of tissue when he was born. Because he was a human being. With the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ALL humans have. He is 17 now, and I remind myself of how we could have legally killed him, yes we had the "choice" to abort, or we could have withheld medical attention when he was born,and how SICK that idea is. I thank GOD every day for him, when he is kicking my butt at X-box, pulling in a halibut, shooting his first bull moose, running a dozer with me at work, or talking to me after my radio show about the concepts of Liberty, boggling my mind at how far ahead of me he is when I was 17. There is no justification. Abortion, is murder.
I've thought a lot about abortion recently and realized that I don't care much about it one way or the other. I guess I am not a fan of it but I really don't judge women I know who have had them harshly. I get why people have strong feelings about it but I just don't.
ReplyDeleteAP,
ReplyDeleteOK, cool, I'm down with ere-body's rights and all, but what about the woman, I mean the Momby, the undead female that shambles along in her capacity as merely a vessel, a carrier, for an actual human being. Has she no say in the matter?
Dave
Yahweh tells us we are to protect the most innocent among us. His hand is being lifted away from us as we have failed to do so.
ReplyDeleteThere is no justification for killing the unborn unless you are pure evil.
Mike
Bottom line:
ReplyDeleteAbortion=Murder.....period.
Bob
III
Underground Carpenter-
ReplyDeleteDoes a mother have a "say" in her born child's life?
Yes, she has much say in matters pertaining to the baby, but killing it is forbidden to her.
That is all I propose.
Don't kill the baby.
In most infanticide cases, by far the majority of them, she made the conscious choice to have sex. That was her "say". That is where the "choice" is made.
In the cases where she did not choose to voluntarily participate in the act of procreation, the violation is not undone in any way by murdering another innocent party.
AP
I am the anon from the Susan G. Post who mentioned Ceausescu BTW,
ReplyDeleteA fetus should not be defined as a person until is developmentally different enough than just the sperm and egg separately to survive with ordinary care. Not extraordinary care BTW but basic stuff.
This just seems common sense to me and covers Graybeards objections.
I suppose thats arbitrary but so is "at conception" Its certainly much less so than any ideas driven by religious notions.
Beyond that, I don't see any point in trying to rationalize it further, its an issue of emotion and faith and not amendable to any sort of discussion that causes minds to be changed, especially on the Internet.
If abortion = murder then does miscarriage = manslaughter?
ReplyDeleteHave a care before you answer and do a little research.
If the mother chose to have sex and gets pregnant, then clearly abortion is murder. But if the act was non-consensual, why should the mother be forced to share her body against her will? Consider this hypothetical case - you are forced to be connected to a transfusion tube to an innocent person with a who needs to share your blood supply in order to live. Do you have the right to disconnect the tube if it means their death?
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:29 et. al.-
ReplyDeleteAn unborn human has the right to life, whether or not the mother chose to become pregnant.
As for the manslaughter issue, I cannot answer that.
All I can say is that killing a baby is murder. Seems pretty simple.
No mental gymnastics, no beating around the bush.
Don't freaking kill babies.
How hard is that?
AP
Anon 1:31-
ReplyDeletePersonhood arguments are BS and obfuscation.
Human. Human. Human. Not "person".
How is an unborn human not a human?
How is an unborn human not human?
That was my question, not some obfuscation around a concept like "personhood".
Is an unborn human human or not?
Answering that question logically and honestly utterly destroys every argument for killing unborn babies.
And you know it.
AP
AP - you give an unborn human rights to encroach upon the mother that you would not give a born human being. No one has the right to take life sustaining resources (blood, food, oxygen etc.) from another by force - whether by murder or rape. That includes an unborn human.
ReplyDeleteThat principle is also why, if you employ deadly force to lawfully protect yourself, and you accidentally kill an innocent, you are not guilty of murder.
"Anon 9:29"
Anon-
ReplyDeleteAP - you give an unborn human rights to encroach upon the mother that you would not give a born human being.
How is an unborn being encroaching upon the mother? What actions has said human taken against the mother? Encroach? Come on.
No one has the right to take life sustaining resources (blood, food, oxygen etc.) from another by force - whether by murder or rape. That includes an unborn human.
So are you seriously comparing a baby developing in the womb to a rapist? "By force"? Really?
Thank you. You have pointed out the ridiculousness of your position far better than I ever could have.
I mean, for crying out loud...
ReplyDeleteReally?
AP,
ReplyDeleteThere's also the other angle. If a mother can unilaterally decide to abdicate her responsibility to a child in utero, why can't a father do the same?
I'm willing to bet you good money that the so-called pro-choice advocates out there wouldn't extend the same "right" to men that they do to women. See, it isn't about the baby at all - it's about one group of people (the one they support) having "rights" that others don't enjoy. It's also about their "right" to loot someone else to pay for their decisions. It's why you'll hear the abortion mongers saying "my body; my choice" in one breath, while condemning "deadbeat dads" in the next. Because, after all, involuntary servitude on the part of the mother for 9 months is totally worth involuntary servitude on the part of the father for 18+ years. Some animals are more equal than others, after all.
The argument about life is one they are prepared for adequately (they don't care about life, but they've already come up with the verbal tricks to avoid having to confront the reality of what they are). The one about obvious unfairness to another group, when they are the ones preaching about "gender equality" is not one that they are prepared to handle. Yes, abortion is murder, yet calling it such is not an effective way to debate them, because they have well-established propaganda outlets to counter it. But the fact that they are unwilling to allow fathers to walk away from the unborn (because mommy dearest MUST not have to pay the price for spreading her legs under any circumstances), means that they find themselves at a contradiction between two of the absolutist positions that they preach.
Thoughts?
I don't play pro-baby killers' word games.
ReplyDeleteIt's a baby, not a "fetus".
It's a human, not a "person".
It's alive, not "viable".
It's infanticide, or killing a child, not "abortion".
It's choosing to kill a human, to destroy another human's body, not having the "right" to "control one's own body".
I refuse to allow "their" terms to dictate the terms of the debate. They are the ones claiming the right to kill babies. Let them bear the burden of proof.
Take the offense.
In a "tribe" where AP was supreme warlord, male members of the female's family would be allowed to correct the situation with a deadbeat dad.
The American legal system is very harsh on the male compared to the female in this situation, IMO. I've seen it, firsthand, over and over. Having said that, men need to own up to their acts. Having said that, SO DO WOMEN.
The crusade against "deadbeat dads" has also served for massive government intrusion into bank accounts and earnings.
My "deadbeat dad" solution would be a bit less civilized than is allowed today. It would be both preventive and punitive, as appropriate.
Having said that, there are many, many issues contributing to this problem, the breakdown of the family, the feminization of men, and the hedonism prevalent in society being a few.
I agree that you don't want to play their word games. But they were prepared for you to simply state "abortion is murder". That indicates that the best route of attack is not along those lines. Wear them down along another line first, then use that one once they are weakened a bit rhetorically.
ReplyDeleteI've had some luck in debates with the abortion mongers when bringing up the "men's rights" side of the issue (at least, luck to the degree that they shut up and think instead of mouthing catch phrases).
It's all wordgames and bs, but that particular brand of wordgame and bs has given me some degree of success. Understand, you and I agree on what abortion is - I'm just suggesting another way to crack the nut.
Anon-
ReplyDeleteAgree, we do.
I see what you're saying, and you're right. "Abortion is murder" is a thrust they are prepared for.
I'll take your words to heart; you make great points. Some refinement is in order.
Thanks!
AP