Barack Obama wants to kill babies? Another example of crazy Liberalism...

It might have been in this specific case, but that does not matter at all, because the OP was about forcing the passing of a bill and laws are made for the general case, which would include my assumption.

Congratulations, point proven! We could easily prevent born alive situations by a simple injection (or substituting drug induced labor completely for D&E or D&X). But for some reason, prolifers find it more humane not to do this and instead rather put up with torturing to death. Fact is: Not every fetus is meant to live. In earlier days, nature would have solved the problem for us and there was no morality involved except accepting the world as it is. With modern medicine, we have mastered life and death to a point, where we have to start asking ourselves, if that what we can preserve really will be life or nothing but a burden.

When it comes to abortions, we can indeed not ask the fetus for it's opinion for the simple reason, that it has none and cannot have one for technical reasons. The prolife fallacy is peddling around fetus photos and implying, that because a fetus already has human feature, it is in no way distinguishable from a human at a much later stage of life, which is blatantly wrong. Our whole society builds upon parents making decisions for their children, whats best for them, till they are old enough to take control of their lives themselves. Nobody in their right mind would let a 6 year old sign contracts. Thats something you do, once you are grown up. It is beyond me, why we should then assume a fetus having the same set of mind as let's say a 10 year old and in doing so having the ability to grasp abstract concepts like life and death or understand it's situation.

Assuming, you could ask a fetus of it's opinion and get an answer based on a fantasy of what person it might be in several years is simply put nothing but a form of circular reasoning. To illustrate the fallacy here, I can simply assume, that the later child will be an emo-kid or will have an emo phase.

So, to boil it down: A fetus is diagnosed with trisomy 21, which means social isolation at best and nursing case at worst. Disregarding the financial and psychological consequences for the parents completely, do you honestly think, that such a life is in the best interests of the later kid?

Pleasure to be have been of help with your definitions and if you want to call me "pro death", what should I call you then for your efforts to force an existence of suffering? Pro non-live perhaps? Also please note, that your threats of eternal damnation do not impress me at all. All they do is confirm, that for you this is a question of religion. There is no reason to base our live today on some age old superstition.

 

So let me get this straight, your logic is that because the fetus can not make decisions for itself that it should not be regarded as anything more than a ball of goo? I am assuming that you are too young to have a child of your own or simply don't have any. If you haven't noticed, humans at birth are one of, if not the most, helpless beings in the world. Parents are required to feed the child, we are unable to communicate, and it takes our brain and physical abilitites to develop for about a year before we can even communicate a single word and begin to move around.

Using the logic above, just about every child below the age of 1 year old (potentically 2 years old) could potentially be subject to death if we felt that it would become a "burden" to take care of them.

Wow, now we're taking it a step further. So any child (or adult for that matter) who is unable to make decisions on its own should be allowed to die?

 

Because a fetus cannot make decisions of it's own, it needs someone to make decisions for it. That is a principle, we base our entire parenting upon. For some reason, prolifers seem to have the funny idea, that a fetus is capable of having a will, desires and wishes while in the womb, looses them upon birth and slowly regains these abilities when growing up. The facts speak against this. Deal with it.

Oh spare me the stupid prolife rhetorics. You might have noticed, that there is an arbitrary point, coincidently called "birth" at which the fetus is granted the right of personhood and therefore is protected by law. But it's funny, that you admit, that it takes way beyond birth for a child to actually develop rudimentary personality, which completely undermines the prolife position of an unborn being a person at all the time (which is the basis for protection).

Beyond shooting yourself in the foot by your own argument, you also completely missed the point, which is: What sane reason is there to force an existence into being, that will never have what we call a "normal" life? And as a reminder: A women that does not want to have a child generally does not wait to the 3. trimester to get an abortion. A women doing it that late has medical reasons for this decision.

 

God, I have a tough time with this one. Ultimately, I come down on the pro-choice side of the argument, but it isn't an easy decision for me. I believe a woman's body is of course her own, and so much of what is wrapped up as "pro-life" is really dogma surrounding the notion of woman as tool for procreation, something that makes me squirm.

At the same time, it's difficult for me to arbitrarily confer "personhood" on a child once born, and "non-personhood" anytime earlier. Whatever you want to call it, the thing living and growing inside a woman's womb feels pain and pleasure, responds to its mother's cooing, displays many attributes commonly associated with "person." That said, I can in no way confer the same on a blastocyst.

Where is the line between "person" and "non-person?" I have no answer. I also cannot in any good conscience declare it's my right to tell a woman what she will and won't do with her body - but no answer is incontrovertibly optimal, in my opinion.

 

Actually, I find it ironic that you say that they have no right to life based on the concept alone that they don't have the mental capability of making decisions on their own, but yet I doubt you would argue the same case for a 2 year old. Or would you?

What is your stance on "Baby Grace"? http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/112607dntexbabygrace.1c6429d.html

Who says that the vast majority of children who are aborted each year wouldn't have a normal life? Most are aborted for selfish reasons, nothing more.

 

I would agree that most abortions are for selfish reasons.

 

As I said: spare me the stupid prolife rhetorics. Especially, if you manage to blast your own argument by admitting, that that which you want to preserve does not actually yet exist. Birth ends the time span for abortion. Discussing beyond that is silly.

My stance on this is, that such things happen, have little to nothing to do with abortions and you have a problem with logically structuring your arguments (or even understanding what you argue about).

Believe it or not: Women have human rights too. Furthermore you missed the point again, as this thread is not even about abortions in general.

 

To say the least I find it quite entertaining that you brought up the argument about thought processes having weight when it comes to identifying life. You never argued some of the classic cases for pro-choice. You were way off when you decided to put other things in there. I just don't think you are that informed on your point of view. When asked about a 2 year old child in the same condition you have described you won't respond whether it would be wrong to kill them or not.

In case you are getting lost in the points, which seems to be the case... you cannot assume that the ability to care for one self has anything to do with whether they are a living creature or not. I think most scientists on your side would even disagree with a lot you have said.

Either way, I think you will feel different when you have a child of your own.

 

In case, you have forgotten: You were the one bringing up, that even well after birth, a vital component of human beings still is missing and I was mocking you for your little faux pas. Furthermore, I spent already a lot of time, explaining that birth is the arbitrary line after which we grant personhood, barring killing the baby. In case you want to nail me on my views of euthanasia with Baby Grace, then I'd have to tell you, that that case hardly counts as such.
I don't find it very entertaining wasting my time on explaining someone else over and over again, where the problem with their arguments lie.

 

Dang, some of you peepz are crazy..

 

Abortion is most often used as a form of birth control. Twenty years ago when I was attending high school a friend of mine received 4 abortions in a 2 year period. During college she received 16. I am sorry this is murder.


This same lady has severe depression over the abortions and has extreme guilt, she often says she wished she would have realized that this was murder. She is going to group counseling with about 50 other women feeling the same way.