Since Liberals think that it is ok to abort a child?

Question

because it is dependent upon its host
therfore not life...
shouldnt all babies be able to be aborted in thier mindset?
since a breastfed baby cannot feed itself...
a bottle fed baby cannot feed itself either...
they are dependent upon thier parents.. does this mean by thier definition that they are not life??

Answer 1

Ever find it funny how Liberals are for Abortion, which is murdering an unborn child that has never done anything wrong....

But are staunchly opposed to the Death Penalty, which executes criminals for committing heinous and violent and sickening crimes against other people.

Never had one of them be able to explain that to me...just another example of the fact that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Answer 2

Its like this . Unless you have advanced to the point where your brain tells you to store food in large enough supplies that you have more to eat then you need , then bringing another life into the world is silly .
So a community must then be willing to support this life in the hopes as it ages that it will in turn care for them when they are to old to care for themselves .
This is society . Do some searching and you will find that it is often the youngest child that is not fed when food supplies are short . That then it works its way up the ladder to the point where a child is able to forage on its own to survive and contribute to the community . If things are real bad the old and the young must perish . Those least able to provide for themselves go first .
Then the smartest of those left decide who gets banished or killed so that the rest can survive . Those killed would be the ones who are found hoarding food and water . They perish and the supplies distributed among those who just killed them . Once the group is down to 20 or fewer members those who have proven of value by being able to produce children must live to repopulate . Thus we get down to one male and a harem of child producing women till it reaches one man and one woman . Canabalism is natural at this point to survive and the last 18 have been consumed by the survivors . At this point mankind does face extinction . Brother and sister mate if we survive or mother and son if the father is killed .
We are animals after all and reality is harsh .
So in the grand scheme of things abortion is nothing more then the choice to save what one sees as their life and lifestyle . Since their is no God or afterlife or hell or punishment for being a survivalist able to coop with reality .

Answer 3

That seems to be what they mean, Since many other
people such as Alzheimer's victims, quadrapelegic's
can not care for themselves are they not life either.

by the way
Note to Alias Smith and Jones, here is the definition of a
child right from the dictionary (careful what you ask for)

A person between birth and puberty.

1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.

One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.

Answer 4

Liberals don't think it is allright to abort a child; we defend a woman's right to choose. Choice is not Pro-Abortion; it is an understanding that a woman's body is hers to sheperd as she sees fit. Choice includes, birth control, adoption at birth and yes abortion. While I am personally opposed to abortion; I support choice as I have no tubes, and it would be facist to tell someone else what to do with their own body.

You are confusing conception with birth, and the unborn are not people and therefore they have no rights nor legal presence.

Answer 5

Then we should be allowed to have an abortion until the child reaches the age of 18 years. Making child abandonment no longer an issue.

Answer 6

When people talk about viability they talk about a fetus that could be born and survive outside the womb. They are not referring to someone that is a dependent. There is a clear difference between being dependent on the body of your mother to exist and being dependent on others outside the womb. Once a fetus can survive outside the womb, it is no longer dependent on a specific physical entity for its existence. Any human being can care of a baby, but only one can carry it to term.

Answer 7

You're right.

The oddest thing is how it is defined as either a fetus or a baby based upon the whim of the mother. If she says she wants an abortion then its legally non-human tissue. If her boyfriend hits her in the stomach and the fetus aborts as a result of the injury then the boyfriend is charged with murder.

Its either human or not, not both; and it should not be one thing at one moment and another thing at another moment.

Answer 8

If Abortion is the law of the land, we should have euthanasia for the Mental Ill, and Mentally Retarded, and the Severely Physically Disabled.

We should also Spay, and Neuter those who have Genetic Abnormalities, and Mental Disabilities, and those who have had more children than they are able to support.
Outraged Minister

Answer 9

This, Princess, is what we call grasping for straws. You know very well what the answer to this question is, yet you chose to flame instead of discuss.
As an aside, this left leaning girl does not think that it is ok to abort a pregnancy, but it is not my place to tell others what to do with their bodies. That is why I am pro-choice (with obvious limits that you and the like would never understand).

Answer 10

But the breastfed baby doesn't need a mother to do it, anyone can. If someone wants to care for it, they can. However, you cannot (yet) transfer pregnancies.

I believe you are using a different form of support. You are assuming all life process, from procurement of food down the line. Support in the birth sense means that it can survive in a normal human environment.