A D O P T I O N You can't deny that the people who had the baby are responsible. Killing it is in no way being responsible for anything except a death. I have seen no one here suggest that the child be abandoned... except those who support abortion which is the ultimate abandonment.
Giddy, First - it is not a baby......it is a fetus...... Second: No way you can guarantee that EVERY single one of those babies....even the ones born disfigured, r****ded, and special needs would be adopted. People like to make themselves feel better by forcing their morality on others, lots of lip service....not much action. DD
Sorry if I missed your sarcasm. It was very unclear. Nevertheless, how long can you continue to dodge my question and the dilema it presents you?
okay you would offer more help to women, so they are free to choose if they want it or not. You can't deny the effects of abortion on the woman who chose not to be a mother. How could you possibly be against offering help to these women, whether it be before they get pregnant, or after they terminate the unborn? ...or is me offering help to these women before they get pregnant just trying to push my morality on them (although you don't know anything about me)? You talk about mothers and children needing support and the "Pro Life crowd" not helping, but now you are saying you would be against help? Its not about morality, or forcing beliefs on others. Its about offering help to women who obviously feel they need it (since they are choosing to terminate a child because they can't support it).
From Dictionary.com: FETUS the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. Now I'm not about to let a dictionary definition settle an argument even for me, but isn't it interesting that this definition of fetus in no way distances the fetus from the animal it is... only in its recognizability. So where are you getting this gulf of a distinction between a fetus and a baby? May I suggest a manipulation in your own mind to justify your preference... GAME OVER? Of course I can't guarantee any of that... why is that a reason to deprive that child of a life of its own? 100% of the time, were I a fetus, I've opt for live birth over being aborted. Can you imagine anyone wouldn't? I don't know about you but most of us "force our morality" on others a lot of the time when we insist on a code of laws to protect us and our loved ones. False argument.
Definition of a parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host Isn't it interesting that the definition of a parasite basically fits the description of what a fetus is? I'm not saying I view a fetus as such but the definition clearly fits what a fetus is. You confused me with this last part.
The problem with the argument Giddy is we have legislated....Roe V. Wade was part of that. So, since it is a woman's choice, and the morality has been set...what is the point of arguing? DD
While no dictionary definition should settle anything, the difference is that fetus is a term that both sides (mine begrudgingly) are willing to use because it is a scientific term which has been manipulated for legal purposes. I'm sure a scientific dictionary would draw a further distinction than the language dictionary I cited did. However, parasite is a term used pejoratively to undercut the discussion and it is one that I don't resonate because it's not the fetus' job to sustain the mother. I'm not sure what is confusing about the last part. Everyone unborn would choose life over death if there were a way to ask them.
This is the fallacy in your argument.......so you are in heaven, you are about to go down to earth and be born, yet.....your life will be hell, you will be born with spina bifida, and will live in pain for only 4 years..... Or, you could stay in heaven.... Yet...you assume they would want to be born? You assume too much sir. DD
I'm not dodging it, I just think it's really flawed and its going to be like taking the biggest dump ever to answer it. Can I blame you? No. Does it make my wife less valuable? In your eyes, yes, less valuable/sacred to you. To me, no. Why should your choice be all important? Um. This is where I get lost. You're comparing the death of -my- loved one, to an abortion of someone else's child? That's kind of the hitch... there is hardly any comparison between you allowing my wife to die, and someone choosing to abort their baby. There's just a multitude of problems with that. How is a hypothetical situation where 1 person of 2 will die even close to that of an elective abortion? For one thing, you would have to change the abortion scenario to be a medical emergency to give any sign of fairness. Another thing, you are imposing your will on a completely free-standing, seperate, independent party here, crossing the boundaries of "where your rights end, mine begin". You're effectively saying that the relationship you share with my wife, is on equal footing to that which a mother shares with their unborn. I can't make that logical leap with you. In the case of an abortion, you have an undeveloped human inside of a carrier, choosing to make an internal sacrifice which has no effect outside of anyone but themselves (in most circumstances, that is). That is hardly a comparable to "your wife dies or mine dies". That scenario & decision, while not only entirely implausible & impractically rare in relation to the frequency of abortions (save for some awesomely bad hollywood movie script), crosses logical boundaries and breaches rights that are firmly established. I can see a recurring theme here of invoking the gospel to protect the pro-life argument. And I'll say this about that. I do not consider any religion or dogma when forming my opinions. I go by the law of men as it currently exists and the rules of science as we know them today to formulate my opinion. Any argument steeped in emotion, rather than rationale, I am never going to be able to see eye-to-eye with you about, so when you start bringing up the whole "what about how so-and-so feels?" or start defining the moment life beings (an entirely emotion driven argument), I'm just not going to be able to follow you down that road. Not being difficult, just being honest.
You do know that there was a whole world and life before Roe v. Wade? Some laws reflect society. This is one that I feel does that in an unflattering way. Laws can change. Some should and this is one that I feel should. It is not my ardent ambition to "meddle with" someone else's life but I am willilng to do that if it means saving another innocent life. I'm very much a live-and-let-live kind of person which is exactly why I am a pro-Lifer. I understand why someone considers it an inconvenience to them that I feel that way but you know what? That is a small consideration that pales agains a greater thing at stake-- an unborn life who deserves more from us, all of us.
The fallacy is in your argument. That is a fantasy. How do you know anyone knows anything about how their life will turn out.
What baffles me is that you (and most people on the pro-choice side of this discussion) think Roe v. Wade states that women have a universal, unimpeded choice. This is the discussion I have with andymoon. He defends Roe but he speaks as if Roe says far more than it really does.
It is all fallacy, we are arguing over hypotheticals....you are saying 100% of the people would choose life.....uh....ok....LINK please....or...PROVE IT..... Of course you can't......that is the entire point. Here is the disconnect, I am happy that women have a choice, you want to limit their choices. I am happy that my side is winning and consider it right....feel free to complain to the government to change it, but don't be shocked when the majority disagrees with you and doesn't change it to fit a narrow view not shared by most. DD
Max.....if you want to get into the legaleeeeze about Roe V. Wade, you are wasting time...... Most people do not want it overturned, allowing states to then legislate their own morality. The particulars about Roe V. Wade, may be important to you, but not to me. I think the status quo is just fine. DD
It shouldn't... and that is exactly my point made in defense of unborn children. Why does the mother's choice matter more than the child's right to life?
There is no right to life........that is the disconnect.....if the mother chooses to abort.....it is her right to do so.... You have no say. DD
