Quote:There have been death sentences carried out "beyond a shadow of a doubt" which later got overturned.
I see you didn't address the video tape comment. Very liberal like. I act surprised that you would take up for criminals and support a woman's right to slaughter her innocent baby.
Quote:I see you didn't address the video tape comment. Very liberal like. I act surprised that you would take up for criminals and support a woman's right to slaughter her innocent baby.
Yeah, because video footage can't be faked right? And a clump of cells in the womb is not a baby.
Quote: And a clump of cells in the womb is not a baby.
That's just, like, your opinion man. My wife was fully convinced that the child she lost at 10 weeks was a baby and she's barely recovered from it emotionally. I guess in some ways it's better to think like you guys do, it's much easier on the heart and conscience.
Quote:Yeah, because video footage can't be faked right? And a clump of cells in the womb is not a baby.
clumps of cells don't develop heart beats, unique fingerprints, and personalities of their own.
Abortion discussions are obnoxious. Don't support abortions? Don't get one. But don't claim you are a conservative and then try and use the government to tell people they can't spend their money getting a medical procedure or restrict a business from offering the service.
Furthermore, believe it or not, an abortion can save a life.
And to clarify, I cannot support someone getting an abortion for purposes of convenience. However, if someone was raped, if the mother's life is in jeopardy or if the child has severe defects, I can support the decision.
But it's the same thing as gay marriage. If you don't like it, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Also, what someone says they think about abortion or gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to run a country and should be considered as such.
This thread all of the sudden turned from discussing voter ID to abortion. I think we should start a thread specifically about abortion and try to get this thread back on topic.
Quote:It's the concept of innocence. A murderer has earned his fate, a "fetus" has merely existed.
That's not accurate depending on what your beliefs are.
Those who espouse a pro life view see all life as sacred from the unborn to the person on death row.
If life is sacred for one, it's sacred for all regardless of their actions.
Quote:Yeah, because video footage can't be faked right? And a clump of cells in the womb is not a baby.
wow, you are the prototype liberal.
lol so i guess that clump of cells is not a human, it just develops into a human at a later time
are you listening to yourself right now???
you're taking up for the guilty and not the innocent. that's horrible
but i think everyone sees you here
Quote:lol
I'm missing the humor here.
Quote:Exactly.
So, if you're married and your wife tells you she's pregnant, what exactly does that mean to you? And suppose someone comes up and does harm to your wife that ultimately terminates the pregnancy in that stage where you see nothing but a clump of cells. How would you react?
Quote:So, if you're married and your wife tells you she's pregnant, what exactly does that mean to you? And suppose someone comes up and does harm to your wife that ultimately terminates the pregnancy in that stage where you see nothing but a clump of cells. How would you react?
It would be impossible for him to say how he'd react because (hopefully) he's never been in that situation. He cam merely say how he'd like to react.
On top of that, an abortion and the situation you're describing are not the same. An abortion is a choice the woman made herself, as opposed to a choice made for her.
Quote:It would be impossible for him to say how he'd react because (hopefully) he's never been in that situation. He cam merely say how he'd like to react.
On top of that, an abortion and the situation you're describing are not the same. An abortion is a choice the woman made herself, as opposed to a choice made for her.
The inalienable right to life of the unborn should not be contingent on the choice of anyone else.
Quote:The inalienable right to life of the unborn should not be contingent on the choice of anyone else.
Unless you can convince yourself that it's just a clump of cells.
Quote:It means that in 9 months or less, her and I would have a child.
Why is it that one side uses the "those cases are rare" line if non-viable (ie. ectopic) pregnancies and/or rape cases are brought to the discussion, yet is quick to bring up rare hypotheticals?
Because it's interesting to see the gymnastics people have to go through for a "fetus" to sometimes be human and sometimes not based on the simple whim of an existential personage.
Quote:Ever? Earlier in this thread you said that there are times it is appropriate to terminate a pregnancy. In those cases, the right to life of the unborn is contingent on someone else?
Which is it.......?
We discussed non-viable pregnancies already, didn't we?
Quote:We discussed non-viable pregnancies already, didn't we?
Why does a 7 week tubal pregnancy with a visible heartbeat carry less rights than a 4 week (normal) pregnancy with visible a gestational sac but no visible fetal pole?
Shouldn't the choice of life be up to each individual?
Quote:Why does a 7 week tubal pregnancy with a visible heartbeat carry less rights than a 4 week (normal) pregnancy with visible a gestational sac but no visible fetal pole?
Shouldn't the choice of life be up to each individual?
I yield to your knowledge, but doesn't a 7 week tubal have zero chance of survival? In that case, where there is no chance for the pregnancy to go to term and the woman could potentially die then the lesser evil is to terminate the pregnancy.
Edit: Please remember that I'm primarily speaking from the place of abortion as contraception, not medical necessity. I know that it's often that there is no other option for the health of the mother or any chance to bring the pregnancy to term.
Quote:I yield to your knowledge, but doesn't a 7 week tubal have zero chance of survival? In that case, where there is no chance for the pregnancy to go to term and the woman could potentially die then the lesser evil is to terminate the pregnancy.
The morally appropriate approach in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the fallopian tube completely, or to use medications that will clear the ectopic pregnancy. As long as it's not a direct attack on the pregnancy itself, and it's an effort to at least save the life of the mother, it's morally acceptable to use either approach.
You guys are both correct, but I don't see how that supports this view:
"The inalienable right to life of the unborn should not be contingent on the choice of anyone else."
Prior to the the case of Jeanna Geise, rabies was deemed to have a 100% mortality rate among non-vaccinated humans. Prior to that case, would you have supported the killing of rabies victims because they are no chance to live and pose serious health threats to others?
Things just don't line up.