Obama and Abortion

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Lancer
I certainly would want to, but no I would not object. To do so would put a strain on a relationship that she would need at a difficult psycological moment. She's been raped. There's two people there. If I cannot help the baby I still want to be able to help my (hypothetical) sister.

Though this thread is about living aborted babies who are left to die alone through neglect. Sir Og, I've answered your question. Will you now please take the time and watch the videos?

I will when I get home.

[Patroklos]

The premise of the debate over legalised abortion is that making abortion illegal will stop people having abortions. It will not. That much can be seen in countries where it is illegal.

If you are pro life you are probably not against abortions to stop abortions, but against abortion to stop murder.

In that light, your reasonings above is as absurd as not outlawing murder because murders will still happen, or not outlawing rape becaue rape will still happen.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Just because it is legal doesn't stop it from being murder.

Actually, of course it does. An execution is ending a human life, but we don't prosecute executioners because they did their killing with the backing of the Law. Murder is unlawful killing. Killing done with the support of the Law is be definition not murder.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I, btw, absolutely HATE this line of argument. I invariably respond to it by saying that women shouldn't be involved in legislation for funding prostate cancer research.

Last time I looked, people would send women and the doctors who performed abortion to jail. I don't think experiementing on drugs for prostate cancer will ever devolve into a CRIMINAL issue, so I find this arguement very incomplete and inadequate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lancer
What about Gianna's question?

Ok, regarding a 'woman's right to choose' she asked something like "what about my rights?" You see, she got cerebral palsy from being aborted. Perhaps she considered that being aborted contravened her rights.

So what? Fetuses don't have rights. Only creatures that can ask for and defend rights have rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lancer


Asking me a question actually, and I'm not here to argue with anyone. I'm passing the question on to the woman who can best answer it.

No, you're trolling and avoiding the issue.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
This smoke screen worn thin years ago. My not wanting to murder human beings has nothing to do with any desire to dominate a woman’s body.

If you don't want to murder human beings, why are you in the military?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you are pro life you are probably not against abortions to stop abortions, but against abortion to stop murder.

Except that many people who are anti-choice are also anti-contraception. This is not an issue of defending babies. This is an issue of male supremacy.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


No, you're trolling and avoiding the issue.

Totally -- thread should be deleted if the thread starter won't even debate the issue. It's been a civil discussion, and "you should ask her" is a total cop out.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Patroklos

The fact is medicine and the pro-life crowds are not consistent. It would be easier to pretend they are not knowingly rationalizing the destruction of human life for convenience if they could moderate self absorption through consistency. They can’t, thus their motives are laid bare.

What does this mean? I'm assuming you meant pro-choice, not pro-life, but I'm still having a little trouble. What motive are you implying?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


So what? Fetuses don't have rights. Only creatures that can ask for and defend rights have rights.

Newborn babies can't do that as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Last time I looked, people would send women and the doctors who performed abortion to jail. I don't think experiementing on drugs for prostate cancer will ever devolve into a CRIMINAL issue, so I find this arguement very incomplete and inadequate.

Talk about missing the point.

The idea is that our representatives can and should vote on things that don't directly impact their lives. Otherwise, nothing would ever get passed. Just because you don't feel the direct impact doesn't mean you can't understand the issues involved.

[Ramo]

What does this mean? I'm assuming you meant pro-choice, not pro-life, but I'm still having a little trouble. What motive are you implying?

I think that he's referring to the fact that we feast on the flesh of fetuses. Patty found us out!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Talk about missing the point.

The idea is that our representatives can and should vote on things that don't directly impact their lives. Otherwise, nothing would ever get passed. Just because you don't feel the direct impact doesn't mean you can't understand the issues involved.

Sorry, but that doesn't save the bad comparison.

It is a biological reality that men and women do NOT have equal roles in procreation. Any legislation related to procreation is bound to affect women far more than men. And yes, individual of either sex can understand and ennunciate the moral or medical issues involved, but in the end, it is still an issue about what is going on inside a woman's body, and women can't run away from their kids in the same way men can.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro
Newborn babies can't do that as well.

They don't have rights either.