Infanticide

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
And this does not in any way equate with late-term abortion. There's a line between when a baby is a baby and when it is a fetus: when it comes out of the mother. As long as it's in the mother, it's her decision to have the pregnancy or not.

What substantive difference is there between 5 minutes before the birth and 5 minutes after birth?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava


I clearly answered that aspect of your argument (which is a diversion from the real issue).

In the woman's body = fetus... off limits to government regulation.
Outside the woman's body = infant/person/whatever you want to call it.

That IS the issue... IT IS ABOUT A WOMAN'S BODY AND HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Because you are a man, you cannot even possibly understand that aspect of the issue. When YOU ARE RAPED and IMPREGNATED BY SOME PIECE OF HUMAN FILTH, then you can know what it feels like to have the government tell you you cannot purge your body of that infestation.

And judging from most conservative stances on social issues... the issue of abortion ISN'T about caring about the welfare of babies or human life... because if anti-choice ****s gave half a **** about human life they wouldn't continue with their self-serving social policies.

"so don't crap me now..." -- Mike Ditka

Stop being a ****ing moron, Sava. YOU are defining it as part of her body if it's inside. You know what, I'm going to define the child as part of the woman's body even when it's OUTSIDE. So it's OK for the woman to kill it at any time, because it's part of her body, right?

Obviously the argument is over whether or not it IS simply a part of her body, moron.

[OzzyKP]

You, or someone just said earlier that those abortions that occur in the last month of pregnancy are very few compared to the whole. Well abortions that happen from rape or incest are a tiny proportion of the total abortions preformed.

You are an excitable hypocrite.

I'm not even going to get into it with you. You are full of ****, and not open to having a reasoned discussion. Just shooting around inflamatory propaganda.

I framed the debate the only logical way it can be framed. You beleive the fetus isn't a person, I believe it is. Thats where we differ. The rest is all just a bunch of bull**** that you refuse to acknowledge or let go.

[Kuciwalker]

Sava - if thefts of money directly out of bank vaults are rare and very few compared to the whole, does that mean they should be legal?

[Ben Kenobi]

so if you aren't some peaceful hippy Buddhist type pacifist...

abortion is killing, not murder... an important distinction, especially in the biblical sense.

Can't you at least try to be self-consistent?

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker


Stop being a ****ing moron, Sava. YOU are defining it as part of her body if it's inside. You know what, I'm going to define the child as part of the woman's body even when it's OUTSIDE. So it's OK for the woman to kill it at any time, because it's part of her body, right?

Obviously the argument is over whether or not it IS simply a part of her body, moron.

thanks for your input boy... cut the cord and take it out... does it survive? probably not...

and your making the dumbest ass argument I've seen on this topic yet... "ooh let's define the child as a part of the woman's body even when it's outside"... give me a ****ing break, my 8 year old cousin can make better arguments.

draw the line at 9 years old? okay... I'm not even going to respond to this statement that is devoid of any intelligence

You are an excitable hypocrite.

nope I'm concretely consistent... inside woman = off limits to government regulation! that's the third time I've had to explain this... do you need a sliderule? or maybe an instructional video...

You beleive the fetus isn't a person, I believe it is. Thats where we differ.

fetus... person... baby... infant... it's all semantics... your argument is entirely based on an arbitrary idea of semantics. There isn't a concrete moment when an embryo becomes what we consider to be a person. That's why there IS an arbitrary line drawn at birth. And that's where it should be.

What is really sad is that you are too hypocritical to acknowledge that you want to USURP a woman's right to her body to enforce your holier than thou idea of morality. Sorry... nice try, but no cigar.

I'm no psychologist... but maybe you use the "human life is sacred" mantra as a self-apologetic tool to reassure yourself that its okay to trample on other people's rights. Maybe it's an unconscious thing that you don't even realize. If that's the case, I pity you. There are ways to help people who are control freaks... even to the extremes of the anti-choice movement... I'm sure they can be helped through years of counseling.

I'd maybe have respect for pro-life twits if they would acknowledge their ignorance and utter hypocrisy.

[Ben Kenobi]

inside woman = off limits to government regulation!

So what about in-vitro fertilisation? Does the child concieved outside of the womb lose her rights when they implant her in the mother?

[OzzyKP]

Wow, I've never set someone on ignore before, but I'm really tempted.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
thanks for your input boy... cut the cord and take it out... does it survive? probably not...

What do you think birth is, if not "cutting the cord and taking it out"?

And are you trying to insult me by calling me "boy"? Implying that somehow your vastly greater experience ( ) confers some sort of added wisdom or intelligence (something that has been demostrated false by you many times )?

and your making the dumbest ass argument I've seen on this topic yet... "ooh let's define the child as a part of the woman's body even when it's outside"... give me a ****ing break, my 8 year old cousin can make better arguments.

draw the line at 9 years old? okay... I'm not even going to respond to this statement that is devoid of any intelligence

DUH it is devoid of "intelligence" - that's the POINT. It has EXACTLY as much justification as your distinction, thus YOUR distinction is devoid of intelligence TOO!

[OzzyKP]

Sava is using an ageist slur, "boy" to make his case. So much for his support for rights, respect, and non-discrimination. Hypocrite.

[Dis]

d

[The Mad Monk]

Is Sava a southerner? Maybe he thinks you're black.

[OzzyKP]

Then he could be racist too.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think that retaining a sense of proportion may be worthwhile, boys.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. So the distinction is arbitrary, and meaningless. Ozzy is entirely correct to say that with such a meaningless and arbitrary distinction that those who believe the child should be killed before birth, have nothing to say to those who believe the child should be killed after birth.

Should? When did the smearing campaign start?