They say
"It's not about killing a baby, it's about having a choice."
A choice to do what? Oh...to legally choose to kill an unborn baby.
2007-03-23 12:30:44 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How would you not argue in circles when trying to justify infanticide?
That's it folks, keep goin'. Call it a Fetus. Sunlight turns a fetus into an infant? Call it an embryo? Circles, circles.
2007-03-23 12:34:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
Other than people who are raped or abused I feel that those who are just willingly having sex and then have an abortion need to close their legs. I know a girl who has 4 living children and has had 3 abortion and will not take birth control or have her tubes tied and in that case i feel she has absolutely no right. I do care about the womans health also and i feel you should make the best choice possible in a situation of life or death for the mother. Those who are raped and abused are always going to carry that hurt and aborting the child will only scar them deeper It ultimately is not the childs fault and that child is still 50% part of YOU it is not just 100% made up of the abuser. I think they should at least give adoption some thought and they would feel much better about themselves. (By the way I am not blindly speaking on this subject as I have been victim to sexual abuse, I have 2 living children, one miscarriage, and one infant death.)
2007-03-23 19:58:37 · answer #2 · answered by shortcake 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The idea is to switch the argument from whether or not it ought to be legal to murder a child to some other line of reasoning...
I think my favorite is the line about "it ought to be legal because women will go to backstreet abortionists or use coathangers if they can't go to an abortion clinic". In essence, this argument says "They're gonna do it anyway, so it needs to be legal." Gee, we could use that argument for just about anything we want to do, couldn't we?
Be careful not to let them get you into the "don't push your religion on me" trap. They love that one...it diverts the discussion from whether or not an unborn child has the right to life to whether or not laws ought to be passed on the basis of religion.
The "clump of cells" argument is just stupid. If we say that every guy who gets a girl pregnant and then doesn't want to deal with the responsibility ought to be castrated, they will be totally shocked. Heck, guys, why all the fuss? It's just a clump of cells.......
Should a woman have a choice? Absolutely. She can make the choice whether or not to spread her legs...once she's made that choice, and she gets pregnant, there is no more "choice".
OH...and one more...beware the one about the poor raped girl, or the poor kid who got pregnant out of incest....abortions done for these reasons are so rare, they aren't really a part of the discussion. As for the "welfare kid"...anybody who can look at a young woman's belly when she is first discovering that she is pregnant and foretell the child's entire life, I want to talk to. There are some lottery numbers I need advice about.........
2007-03-23 20:02:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They argue that the choice is about what to do with your own body and that the fetus isn't really a baby yet, so it has no voice. The real argument is whether or not the fetus is a baby, but arguing about "choice" effectively shifts the argument in a different direction.
Never mind that according to the law we don't have the absolute freedom to do what we want with our own bodies: suicide is against the law, drug abuse is against the law--we already limit what a person can do with his or her own body.
It isn't really a question of choice. Is the fetus a human being? If so, it deserves protection under the constitution.
2007-03-23 19:36:51 · answer #4 · answered by happygirl 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
By definition a group of cells (the first tri-mester, where the majority of abortions take place), that can't feel pain, is not a baby.
A woman, or a couple in many cases, who made a big mistake (most women have no more than one abortion), forced to put her body through the physical and emotional strains of labor before she is ready, now that can ruin a life..
Though it is not always a mistake: birth-control fails, women are raped, should we set up a court to judge if a woman has a good enough reason to make the very hard decision to have an abortion? Convince a panel of jurors?
The thing I find funny is that those against abortion are usually against sexual education. Quite a funny relationship there.
We do, however, have many of our children growing up in below poverty level, often abusive conditions, raised by people should have never been allowed to have children. Strange how we don't see more efforts going into helping these children. Don't worry about these children gotta give that 10% to the church.
2007-03-23 19:37:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I'm not aware of people being pro-choice with infanticide - killing a baby.
However, aborting a fetus or an embryo is not killing. And a woman should not be forced to carry a baby and give birth. People have no right over her body. We may disagree with some women's choices on the matter, but we can't coerce them otherwise.
2007-03-23 19:35:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
... it's barely alive. It's not like it knows what's happening so don't you even give me that crap.
Apparently you don't understand the fact that women have to carry and protect a baby for nine months if they don't abort it, and some people don't want to do that. So why don't you shut the hell up already about it and accept the people that decide to do so. Give those women a choice and stop brainwashing everyone, Hitler.
"and pro life people who are supposedly SOOOOOO concerned with the life of the unborn child never ONCE consider the life of the mother.....sounds pretty hypocritical to me. "
I love you. :D
2007-03-23 19:34:59 · answer #7 · answered by NONAME 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It is a legal option in this country as this is a secular country. I will not judge anyone of makes the choice to use it just as I would not judge someone who avails themselves to adoption or decides to give birth and keep it.
You assume everyone just goes flying off in a sexual frenzy and gets themselves pregnant. There are a number of young girls who get pregnant due to sexual abuse and sadly a number of women who are raped each year. Would you tell these people - people who have had crimes committed against them - that they now have to carry a fetus for nine months and relive those crimes in their psyche? To do so for most would cause horrible psychological damage and that is a totally barbaric act for the 21st century.
2007-03-23 19:39:39 · answer #8 · answered by genaddt 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't understand. You are complaining about the manner of argument of others, and yet you have no argument of your own. You are presupposing your own conclusion. I am sorry to use such big words, but what this means is that you are saying nothing of value to anyone who does not share your opinion. Would you like me to decide how you should run your life? Of course you do. After all, you believe that you can construct a meaningless argument that gives you the right to control the decision of others.
2007-03-23 19:42:07 · answer #9 · answered by Fred 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Look, its a difference of opinion. To a pro-choice person, the fetus isn't a baby, its just a lump of tissue. To those of the anti-abortion persuasion, the fetus is a full-blown human being, entitled to all the rights typically granted thereto.
So, they are only "arguing in circles" when you force them to use your definition of abortion. They don't. Get over it.
2007-03-23 19:34:44 · answer #10 · answered by Skippy 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Why is your username Jesus=God?
I mean, how can you label yourself like that?
Didn't God say that he is the only God?
Are you trying to take up his identity?
On that note ... "Pro-choice" people don't argue in circles any more than "pro-life".
When we can come to a consensus as to when life begins, we will be able to deem it illegal, unethical and immoral to terminate it after that point.
And Jesus/God whatever you've modestly named yourself, you, are NOT the judge.
2007-03-23 19:40:16 · answer #11 · answered by poweranni 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋