|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 12:46:15 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 1, 2018 12:46:15 GMT
Typically, the earliest a premature baby can survive outside the mother is 22 weeks. That's why that age, or thereabouts, often forms the boundary between legal and illegal abortions. And the word 'parasite' is entirely yours, one notes. One can note all one likes, for all the difference it makes. I'll make a note of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 14:27:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 14:27:40 GMT
Gotta love the attitude that "If I can define a fetus as a baby then abortion kills babies and that makes it automatically wrong!!!"
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 15:30:38 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 1, 2018 15:30:38 GMT
Yes, & there's a couple in New York that sued their adult son to leave their home. People who have abortions commit infanticide. If they can't raise their own children, they should instead offer them up for adoption. Ditto for those mothers who did have their own kids but regretted it.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 15:35:36 GMT
Post by general313 on Jun 1, 2018 15:35:36 GMT
Life begins right at the very moment of conception. Technically, life begins well before the moment of conception. Sperm and egg are both live human cells. If you opposition to abortion hinges on this, does that mean that you're against contraception?
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 4:36:12 GMT
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 2, 2018 4:36:12 GMT
Its host? So it's a parasite....a parasite that becomes a sentient human being if the "host" doesn't decide to kill it? This may be the sickest thing I ever read on the Internet. You're a sick freak, TC. If it's not reliant on it's host, what is the mother then to the embryo\fetus? The parasite term is all yours and your own warped selective reasoning and slant, so yes, you are the sickest thing on the internet. What's wrong with the term "mother?"
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 4:57:09 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 4:57:09 GMT
That's right!!! It is the BABY'S life & body, that is a separate sentient being from the mother!!! The baby has as much a right to life as you, & me, and everyone in the entire world!!!!! But it is only a "potential" baby, not a fully formed sentient human being. The mother's life came first and she has the first right to her own life and how it is going to be affected with a baby she doesn't want. The baby that is really just a blob, has no sentient rights at all, while it is still forming inside it's mother's womb. No, it is not a "potential," it IS. It is a human being and a defenceless baby inside the womb.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 4:59:37 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 4:59:37 GMT
The Right to Life is a human right. I'm not the one who is arguing for the total & absolute control over personal dignity & life. Rather, those that are for abortion are the ones that are arguing for total & absolute control over the dignity & life of another. That is, of a defenceless baby. The child that is inside of his/her mother is not part of his/her mother. The child is an entirely separate human being, & deserves to be treated as no less.The child is not a separate being, it is reliant on it's host. The dignity issue comes down to a basic human right, and that is of the mother first. This defenseless embryo\fetus, gets no say in the matter, because they are not a part of the external world. The mother is, and you get no say in the matter, because it's none of your freakin' business what some other person on this planet decides to do with her life. You appear to be going around and around in a loop, due to your corrupted religious conditioning and not moving on in your sequestered mindset. Argue for your limitations, you get to keep them. Yes, it is a separate human being. Right at the moment of conception, a new life has formed and is entitled to the very same basic right to life as we all do. To terminate the child while inside the womb, is no different than to kill the child outside of the womb. It is infanticide.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 2, 2018 8:48:24 GMT
Toasted Cheese Your argument fails here based on the fact that babies are reliant on their mothers for survival after they’re birthed too. Yet I’m sure you would agree a mother killing her baby at that stage would be an evil act.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 8:48:26 GMT
Post by phludowin on Jun 2, 2018 8:48:26 GMT
Its host? So it's a parasite....a parasite that becomes a sentient human being if the "host" doesn't decide to kill it? This may be the sickest thing I ever read on the Internet.Oh, I don't know. I've seen a poster here call other posters "vermin". Now if I could remember who it was...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 11:05:53 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 11:05:53 GMT
Toasted Cheese Your argument fails here based on the fact that babies are reliant on their mothers for survival after they’re birthed too. No, they are not. A woman can give her baby to somebody else ten seconds after it's born and never see it again.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 2, 2018 11:16:28 GMT
Toasted Cheese Your argument fails here based on the fact that babies are reliant on their mothers for survival after they’re birthed too. No, they are not. A woman can give her baby to somebody else ten seconds after it's born and never see it again. Then why the need to terminate it then? Or is it a case of if I’m not keeping her/him, then nobody else is!!
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 12:16:42 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 12:16:42 GMT
No, it is not a "potential," it IS. It is a human being and a defenceless baby inside the womb. Please prove to me how a fetus\embryo is scientifically and legally considered a sentient human being? It has a heartbeat at around 22 days.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 2, 2018 12:18:42 GMT
Yes, it is a separate human being. Right at the moment of conception, a new life has formed and is entitled to the very same basic right to life as we all do. To terminate the child while inside the womb, is no different than to kill the child outside of the womb. It is infanticide. Well, I guess most people in the world with honed common sense will disagree with you. It appears you left yours at the alter. No. Most people in the world with honed common sense agree with me. It is only those that put "Me, Me, Me," first, that do not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 15:29:23 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 15:29:23 GMT
No, they are not. A woman can give her baby to somebody else ten seconds after it's born and never see it again. Then why the need to terminate it then? Because it's her body and she chooses to. That's the only reason anybody needs to exercise any right they have.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 2, 2018 15:43:17 GMT
Then why the need to terminate it then? Because it's her body and she chooses to. That's the only reason anybody needs to exercise any right they have. Again, as it’s been pointed out already, the fetus’ body is not her body though. Therefore it should not be her choice to kill it. The fetus has not simply attached itself inside her body without consent like some kind of parasite. It’s there as a result of a decision she and her partner made. It’s deranged to think her “choice” should have precedence over her fetus’ right to life. It’s basically granting women the license to kill because of the mere reluctance to go through the hassle of pregnancy. If it’s more of a case of the mother not being ready to raise a child then as you’ve already acknowledged she could easily give it up for adoption to a couple who would be more than willing to step in.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 15:50:13 GMT
Post by phludowin on Jun 2, 2018 15:50:13 GMT
Again, as it’s been pointed out already, the fetus’ body is not her body though. Therefore it should not be her choice to kill it. The fetus has not simply attached itself inside her body without consent like some kind of parasite. It’s there as a result of a decision she and her partner made. It’s deranged to think her “choice” should have precedence over her fetus’ right to life. And again, as has been pointed out to you: A fetus is not a person and therefore has no inherent right to life. I could also say that it's deranged to think a fetus has a right to life, or that its life should have precedence over the mother's choice, especially without providing evidence for this claim... but do I really want to stoop to your level?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 17:49:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 17:49:10 GMT
Because it's her body and she chooses to. That's the only reason anybody needs to exercise any right they have. Again, as it’s been pointed out already, the fetus’ body is not her body though. And again, as it's been pointed out already, it is not independent from her body. But it should be her choice to have it removed from her body. If it survives that, Fine. Of course at that point the anti-abortion activists cease to give the slightest hint of a damn about it. Yes, it has.So what? Many parasites enter our bodies as a result of decisions we make. If I get infected by Leishmania parasites, should the correct response be "tough titty, you chose to play in a sand pit so you have to take responsibility and let them grow there"? Of course not. An subjective opinion that I do not share. Yes. I see nothing wrong with that. Make sure your answer includes a little emotive outburst about how evil I am, there's a good chap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 17:52:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 17:52:29 GMT
Again, as it’s been pointed out already, the fetus’ body is not her body though. Therefore it should not be her choice to kill it. The fetus has not simply attached itself inside her body without consent like some kind of parasite. It’s there as a result of a decision she and her partner made. It’s deranged to think her “choice” should have precedence over her fetus’ right to life. And again, as has been pointed out to you: A fetus is not a person and therefore has no inherent right to life. I could also say that it's deranged to think a fetus has a right to life, or that its life should have precedence over the mother's choice, especially without providing evidence for this claim... but do I really want to stoop to your level? It's very noticeable that anti-abortion types almost always resort to emotion and name calling. It's what happens with some people when they can't defend their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 2, 2018 18:26:01 GMT
@graham
That should not give her the right to kill another human being with its own body and unique DNA.
Yes and by letting nature take due course, it will eventually after 9 months be removed from her body alive, healthy and ready to live it’s life. At that point the mother should be free to choose whether she wants anything to do with it.
No, it hasn’t.
Leishmania parasites are not human, a fetus is. Separate species. The fetus and the “host” share DNA. Basically a fetus belongs in the “host”. A parasite is merely invading.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
Jun 2, 2018 18:48:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 18:48:15 GMT
@graham That should not give her the right to kill another human being with its own body and unique DNA. Yes it should. And if she chooses to do that, I'm all for it. And if she chooses to have it out now, I'm all for that. Yes it has. Irrelevant. Both are inside a body whose owner may want them gone, which is the thing that matters.
|
|