to MURDER the unborn child? Why not kill the child one day after birth, or two days after birth? Partial birth abortion still happens in this country, and the only "not born" part of the baby is the head. Why is this OK? How can so many people actually believe this is anyone's right to kill a baby?
2007-01-15 12:36:35 · 12 answers · asked by martiismyname 3 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Intel Knight - 9 months is not half a woman's life, the baby can survive without the woman, I have been there and done that, and no-one pushes a baby out of their rectum...and I won't even comment on the rest
2007-01-15 14:27:23 · update #1
Angelkarm, so what you are saying is that before it was legal (before 1973) it was NOT OK? Because it is the LAW that determines right and wrong?
Higher Law - God's Law - does not change - it is murder. Bad Karma, dude.
2007-01-15 14:35:58 · update #2
Neoszarina, aren't we so wonderfully made? If any of my mitochondria, when left to natural progression, were going to develop into a complete seperate person from myself, I would probably stop "washing my face" or whatever other behaviors killed my unborn "mitochondria" child....wouldn't you?
2007-01-15 14:53:53 · update #3
Littleviv2000, I keep waiting for someone to explain to me their from-the-heart logic that says it is OK to kill a baby. In once sentence we call it a fetus, in the next a baby - "fetus" we can kill in good conscience - can we kill a "baby" in good conscience? No-one has even come close to answering my question. Of course I am wanting to hear the answers....how about someone giving me one?
2007-01-15 15:46:46 · update #4
I am a girl - with girl parts - can't do any of the three, sorry
2007-01-15 17:41:54 · update #5
Voodoid - I don't have a wife. I am not a lesbian man-wanna-be. I am a wife who loves her husband-----why is that so repulsive to some people?
2007-01-16 10:59:47 · update #6
To play the devil's advocate, the mitochondria (which is an organelle in many of your cells) has different DNA, too. Yet we kill our cells all the time--even just by washing our faces.
EDIT: Your initial question was about DNA, not about the embryo becoming a separate person. I don't think it is the DNA differences between mother and child that lend that child a right to life, because (as I've already said) there are other parts of our body with separate DNA that are perfectly moral to kill. If you want to make an argument against abortion, don't focus on the DNA--there are so many better arguments you could make!
2007-01-15 13:49:32 · answer #1 · answered by Halley 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Is this a question, or is it just a place to put your soapbox? Do you really want to hear the other side of the issue, or are you just here to smash down any opposition to your choice?
Up to a certain point, a baby will not be able to survive without being in the womb. I believe that a woman should be able to choose whether she wants to put herself through a pregnancy before that time comes.
Seeing as how I didn't call it a "fetus", I wasn't going for emotional seperation on the issue. Having gone through three pregnancies(and giving birth three times), I can understand, 100%, why a woman would not want to put her self through that, especially if she has made the choice to use BC and it has failed. As I said, before a certain point, the baby can't survive outside of the womb. I, personally, would probably never opt for an abortion, but that doesn't give me the right to stop a woman from getting an abortion before the baby reaches the point where it can survive out of the womb. If you want to bring God into this, I will say that God gave some of his other creatures the ability to self-abort(antelopes trying to get away from a predator as an example) and he also gave some of his non-animal creations abortificant properties.
2007-01-15 15:00:09 · answer #2 · answered by littlevivi 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I personally do not believe in abortion by any means whatsoever! I think that people who believe in abortion or believe that they'll commit this crime against nature shouldn't be allowed to have kids ever! I mean, the spirit of this child will haunt them forever especially when they're expecting a new child years after their decision. The only excuse that these people have is that the men of their lives walked out and they can't afford a baby or they don't know who the father is but they should have enough love in them just to be here for that little being.
2007-01-15 13:01:32 · answer #3 · answered by Dimples 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
of course it's not OK. But where the hell did anybody ever get the idea that laws and governmental policy have a DAMN THING to do with what's right? The feminists developed into a political force to be reckoned with, became adept (like the Japs did when they destroyed several American industries in the sixties and seventies) at paying and bullying the bunch of whores that make the laws. Is it right to jerk everybody off about this phony war? Is is right to let freeloading slobs vote the productive members of society into virtual tax slavery to support surly, freeloading, criminal birthing human junk? Is it right to wreck the friggin' environment because we can afford to?
Want to do something about it? Get organized and scare our "democratically elected" whore bastards off of their current won't-touch-it-with-a-ten-foot-pole chickenshittery jitters about the abortion issue and make it politically dangerous for them to leave the laws as they are.
Me, I don't give a damn anymore. Like I've said. We're better off without the offspring of the people that would kill their own offspring. Maybe we should just make it illegal so they have to go to backalley clowns that would get rid of the mother AND the kid often as not
Now THAT ought to piss somebody off. HAHAHAHAHA
2007-01-16 07:51:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Whether you agree with it or not, it's the law. Thats why it is ok. It isnt murder because THE LAW says it isn't. If you kill a child after birth,you break the law THEN it's murder.
It's just that simple.
Karma.
x
2007-01-15 13:13:06 · answer #5 · answered by angelkarmachic 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's the same old story... once you've decided that those "little clumps of cells" is really a baby, then the decision on this issue is pretty simply.
2007-01-15 12:46:03 · answer #6 · answered by geek49203 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The irony of all this is, they go on about responsibility when it benefits them and they aren't the ones who have to have it, but in this case the child's welfare, hey, everybody's welfare but their own, is ignored.
Feminists want women who commit infanticide to have the get out of jail free card of "post natal depression" as well. Do you really think they care AT ALL?
2007-01-15 17:22:11 · answer #7 · answered by Happy Bullet 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Life begins at birth. Before that, the fetus (not baby, fetus) is a part of the woman's body, and only she can decide what to do with her body. You can't force someone to bear a child they don't want. But legalizing abortion doesn't mean that all women should have them. It just gives them that option in case they should need or want one.
2007-01-15 12:49:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
ADDRESSING THE SPEAKER AT THE SOAPBOX:
"..what you are saying is that before it was legal (before 1973) it was NOT OK? Because it is the LAW that determines right and wrong?'
Buddy, tell it to your elected representatives. If you don't like abortions then I suggest you keep your pecker in your pants, wear a condom or have a vasectomy...In fact, WHYDON'TYOUGUYSDOALLTHREE??????????? Moan, moan, winge, winge, complain, whinewhinewhine winge moan complain winge...yawn...
2007-01-15 17:32:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You poor wife really is a miserable person isn't she? I feel for her.
Somebody just shoot "Happy Bullet" in the head and put us all out of his misery.
2007-01-15 22:29:36 · answer #10 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋