Obama and Infanticide

That's an idiotic comparison for several reasons:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lee_george200601250829.asp

People are responsible to care for their offspring. If they prove unwilling, unfit, or unable to do so, then the public must take responsibility for them. That's why we have child protective service agencies.

As explained in an article I cited earlier, pre-1973 abortion laws generally regarded women as secondary victims of abortion. They weren't forced to testify against abortionists, but they were certainly free to do so.

This "danger" has been grossly exaggerated:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/responseargument4.html

Not if the doctor keeps good records.

You seem intent on inventing convoluted reasons to maintain unfettered abortion on demand. We need laws to minimize both the demand for abortion and the supply, especially considering that the vast majority of abortions are entirely elective.

An unborn child is most certainly alive; this is a simple biological fact.

The "right" not to be pregnant hardly trumps the right to life, and the psychological consequences of abortion are far worse than adoption, especially now that most adoptions are open (i.e. they involve ongoing contact) if the birth mother so chooses.

 

Alive, yes, but conscious, no, which leads me to question the premise that a fetus is a person, since they have no perspective, no sense of being, no soul, they're just lumps of cells. A fly is also alive, yet we swat it without reproach.

This is compelling, but who are you to assert that the consequences of abortion are far worse than adoption for women, assuming you're not a woman yourself? I'm not a woman, so I'm certainly not qualified to make that call. So now a woman is required to carry around what amounts to a parasite for nine months with all the stigma attached if she's unmarried, compromising every aspect of her life, only to give the child away at birth. Do you know what a woman goes through when she's forced to give away her child because she can't afford take raise it?

 

One could make the same argument against the personhood of newborns. In fact, Princeton Bioethics Chairman Peter Singer has argued that humans shouldn't be considered "persons" until age two. Separating humanity from personhood is a grisly proposition.

(I assume you realize that flies are not human.)

Having two adopted children, I know that the birth mothers are content knowing that they gave their babies a chance for a happy life. By contrast, I've known many women emotionally scarred by abortion.

 

Huck, I feel for you, because you just don't get it.

Yes, some of your arguments are compelling. But any one who fails to see that this issue is a complex mix of very compelling arguments with contradictory conclusions is simply not able to convince anyone but the weak minded. There are people like you on both sides of this issue, and none of you actually help create a dialogue that can help us work through this issue as a society. If you ever want to make any progress on this issue, you will think through this issue with a serious mind, beginning with questions, not conclusions and a pretense of divine law (the bible does not mention abortion by the way).

Using loaded words to increase the emotional impact of the issue does not serve anyone but you. I question your intention. Are you trying to convince someone, or are you trying to feel good about yourself?

So far you have called me names, talked in hyperbole, and dismissed out of hand any questions that could possibly poke holes in your nice and neat world view. Why should anyone take you seriously?

 

Huck, i feel for you because you DO get it,

and, even if you were to talk yourself blue in the face, there will still be those who will deny the FACTS ~

that abortion:

A) is murder;

B) is only for the convenience of the mother;

and C) is infanticide, one of the most morally reprehensible, ethically corrupt practices that any civilization could ever condone.

 

Yes, because, right now, SHE is the only one who has the say.

Have you thought about the opposite? The guy WANTS the baby, whether or not the mother does?

If only one person has the say over three lives, that's just wrong.

And if one of the lives isn't even considered a life, well...

And i've actually known of someone in that sitch (i worked as a nurse) ~ she got 'slipped' some acid by a dude she was involved with, who actually had the balls to PROPOSE to her that night, but since she'd taken acid (that HE had slipped into her drink), it would be SO much better to "start out clean," to "not risk birth defects," so on and so forth, and she fell for it. Three months later, he announced his engagement to another person, and went on to marry her.

The abortion she had was HER FAULT. She was THE MURDERER. If she had stopped to think, for just two seconds, about this person that she was so madly in luv with, it wouldn't have taken her long to figure out that: A) she couldn't afford to support any children; B) having sex with anyone you wouldn't bear a child for is the height of stupidity; and C) this joker fell into the "Use 'Em, Abuse 'Em, and Refuse 'Em" category. Her bad. HER bad ~ NOT the baby's bad. But, hey! It took approximately 2 hours to set up the appointment, and there ya go! Easy, breezy, in and out.

Was i allowed to show any, even, DRAWINGS of what was about to happen? Nope.

i "counseled" from a (supposedly) ethical position, and it was to the patients advantage to believe the propaganda about the downside of carrying the baby to term. (Hey! It's a BUSINESS, functioning to MAKE MONEY ~ do you REALLY THINK we tried to change women's minds?...)

 

Actually, that's another illustration of why legalized abortion doesn't liberate women. Rather, it helps men dodge their responsibilities.

 

and yet I'm not convinced of anything but your lack of intellectual rigor.

really, you do a disservice to the right to life movement.

 

And your excess of intellectual rigor[+mortis] is sooo



noticeable...

 

Yes Fyrenza does show that she lacks intellectual rigor as she believes that Abe Lincoln was a Muslim.:dupe:

I've been trying to talk sense into Huckster Finn for over four years and have come to the conclusion that his mind is made up so don't confuse him with facts.

Fyrenza and Huckster Finn claim to be Pro Life but they are die hard warmongers which shows that they don't truly care about preserving life.

 

A) i don't think Lincoln was a Muslim ~ i have seen references regarding the possibility. Big diff.

B) What in the world makes you think either of us are 'die hard warmongers?'

Are you contemptuous of us because we're Pro-Life, unable to call murder anything but what it is? Because we won't try to play the role of God in determining who is allowed to even have a life?

i've tried to explain my beliefs, based on facts. Did you go see the images of late-term abortions? Go to any Pro-Life sites to see the other side of the coin?

i've tried to base my opinion on all of the information that's available, and if you have, too,

then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Well you have both come out in full support of the Iraq war so that is why I referred to you as warmongers.

I have noticed that most so called Pro Lifers aka Anti Choice support the Iraq War as well as the death penalty. If you truly support life then you should be against the Iraq war and the death penalty.Taking away a womens control over her reproductive system as well as her life in general is the true underlying reason that so called Pro Lifers are against abortion. The preceding reason is why Pro Lifers are also against Plan B and in many cases contraception in general.

Fyrenza you are so clueless that you referred to Muslims as a ethnic group and not a religeon. Did you forget our discussion in my Political harrasment in the workplace thread?

 

Wow. You're really having to reach, aren't you?

Well, fyi:

A) i want 'a woman' to have COMPLETE control over HER body ~ with the understanding that if she wants to have sex with someone, it will be THEM that takes responisbility for their own actions, not me, not other tax payers, and not an innocent life that hasn't even had a chance to live.

B) i want an embryonic child to have a right over IT'S body, and one of the major rights it would have is the right to be born.

C) In cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity, i want it to be the woman's and the doctor's choice, or in the case of the woman being a minor, the woman, her parents, and the doctor would make the decision.

And i haven't met a Pro-Choicer, yet, that can explain to me, logically, how a woman's body is sacrosanct,

but a baby's body is just so much tissue...

 

I think any woman should have legal authority to terminate her pregnancy safely whenever she wants.

A child doesn't have rights until they turn 18. They belong to the parents. I believe an unborn person isn't a citizens, belongs to parents, and has no rights.

 

Wow.

Well, sadly, you're in the majority, for now.

 

Most abortions are spontaneous abortions; that is, caused/permitted by... God. Human-caused abortions are much less common.

 

obama eats dead babies.

 

A dingo once ate my baby.

 

That actually happened to an Autralian woman named Lindy Chamberlain. She was wrongfully convicted but then later cleared of any wrongdoing.