If abortion is ok because the baby is incapable of living on its own. Why not an older child? Most children would die if left without care for an extended period of time.
2007-01-07 14:50:44 · 32 answers · asked by HAND 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hell of a way to put it, but it is a good point to bring up.
2007-01-07 15:00:10 · answer #1 · answered by Get Real 4 · 0⤊ 7⤋
Yes, but they are not living inside the body of a woman. They are not dependent on her for EVERYTHING they need to survive. At 6, 7, or 8 months before birth, it is possible that a fetus could survive outside the womb. What about this, let's say if a woman chooses not to carry a fetus at 6 weeks, let's cut her open, remove the fetus, and give it a chance, if it survives, then life is granted. Sounds a little inhumane, huh? Do you know why, because it WILL NOT survive, therefore it HAS NO "life" to be protected.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7
It's all right there, he took a breath and THEN became a living soul. (not Christian myself, Agnostic, but if you want proof from your bible, there it is.)
2007-01-07 15:01:22 · answer #2 · answered by Amanda D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This IS happening every day! Bush and his neo-con cronies in Congress have made so many cuts in social programs, that millions of children have been put in perilous postion. That crowd voices concern about the unborn, but does not give a damn after the child arrives.
2007-01-07 15:00:32 · answer #3 · answered by Proud Liberal 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no comparison between child who has lived laughed loved and trusted & a child who has never been born. I would never have gotten an abortion myself and I wish that it had never been legalized but the fact of the matter is it is still legal.
2007-01-07 14:59:50 · answer #4 · answered by Pamela V 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because, sadly, the law allows abortions because it's not recognized as murder because the unborn child isn't seen as being alive. I think from the time of conception the embryo is a living being.
2007-01-07 14:56:31 · answer #5 · answered by JustMyOpinion 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree. I think if we all ( us women) had see through stomachs and were able to see what happens inside of us when we were pregnant...abortions would become absolete. It is easy to deny what is really growing inside, if you don't have to think about it, see it, etc.
Let me say that I am not only against abortion for the baby's sake. I have known many women who have emotional scars from this..months, years, down the road. I have SEEN them hurt and question their "decesion" and hate themselves, etc.
Abortion takes the life of an unborn child, but it also hurts the mom. maybe more than the baby, as the baby's pain is intense but brief and the woman can have intense emotional pain for many many years to come. It is really a lose lose situation.
We could argue this till forever though....I am truely thankful for my children and mourn for those who have never had the chance to be held, to be loved, to know the sunlight, a lick of a puppy and cookies...
2007-01-07 14:59:59 · answer #6 · answered by PennyPickles17 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Oh for heaven's sake. If the child were 6 or 7 it would not be an abortion, that's why.
2007-01-07 14:54:19 · answer #7 · answered by thrill88 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I don't believe in abortion on demand. I don't believe in your arguments either. This is the type of argument that makes undecided people think that the pro-life movement is filled with idiots. Abortion on demand is wrong because it harms another human. Age is irrelevant.
2007-01-07 14:59:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Simple. You can give away a child after they're born. I think if you could rip out a fetus and just give it away then abortion would be illegal but that's impossible right now.
2007-01-07 14:54:16 · answer #9 · answered by The Killer is Me 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You think that killing a 6 or 7 year old is the moral equivalent of killing an embryo or a fertilized egg? Phew. I hope they don't leave you alone with children.
(Later: oh, man, there's several of you here. I find it sickeningly revealing that so many of you anti-abortionists can't tell the difference.)
It's exactly this kind of argument that illustrates the fact that it is the anti-abortion movement that is morally responsible for the abortions that have happened over the last 30 years. You should be ashamed of yourself.
2007-01-07 14:53:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
Some people think that not having sex is a form of abortion. But this is silly. Your argument is at the oposite end of the spectrum, but just as silly.
2007-01-07 14:55:55 · answer #11 · answered by Desiree J 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋