DVDizzy.com

Anyway, if you believe overpopulation is a problem, why wouldn't you be in favor of aborting unwanted pregnancies? The two issues seem pretty relevant to eachother to me.

That proofs it's not "life" and thus it is not "killing". It's really as simple as that.

But it lives in the womb. That means it has a life. So taking its life is killing it.

I believe the real issue with abortion is whether or not the baby forming inside the mother is considered a human life at any point, because once it's human, taking its life is not just killing it, it's actual murder. And how do we decide if and when the unborn baby is "human?" Once it's able to survive outside the womb? Once it grows recognizable eyes, hands, and toes? When it kicks and sucks its thumb? When it's able to observe, reason, feel, and love? Or . . . is it simply the moment those two cells join together? Where on earth should we draw the line and why?

Do you honestly think it's about that??

It's because Christians view a "fetus" as a human life, and to abort it is murder. It has nothing to do with "controlling" the reproductive rights of women (and on a side note, why aren't there reproductive rights for men?)*

I think I've posted something like this before, but here goes:

If a parent took their 6-month-old child and bashed it's head against the wall, would you consider that murder?

What about someone throwing their newborn in the dumpster?

Is there some magical "pubic fairy" that gives a baby a soul when it passes through the birth canal? If not, then what is the difference between a full-term unborn child and a newborn baby?

What if someone assaults a pregnant woman, either killing her, or causing her to miscarry? Is that murder of the baby? I think there are legal precedents that have shown it to be murder, I'm not 100% sure.

Assuming that you don't believe in the "pubic fairy" and think that at some point the "fetus" is a human being instead of a growth, at what point do you think so?

When it starts kicking and moving?

• When it has it's own heartbeat?
• When there is a good chance it would be viable outside the womb (about 5 months)?
• When it can feel pain?
• When it has brainwaves?

=======

* Reproductive rights for men (for the sake of argument.)
Why can't the father insist that the baby be kept (and raised by him, if the woman doesn't want it)?
Conversely, why couldn't the man insist on an abortion, or if the woman refuses and keeps the baby, he is released from child support?
What about a man who is using birth control and/or is told the woman is using birth control, but she pokes a hole in the condom or has sabotaged her own birth control? Is the man then forced to make payments for 18 years?

Oh, and, I completely agree with the parasite theory. Especially in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. This life will never become a human without the mother's body, so she has the right to decide what she does with it.

No, when they say "on the way", they're still saying they don't have an x-number of children yet; they say they only have so many children and an unborn. So that still proves my point. But remember we're working with candydog's logic here, so within that context my countering makes perfect sense, since it doesn't matter if those terms are legal or statistical. That's just a technicality that doesn't have any bearing on mt argument.

The problem is that, for the people who do consider it murder, they can't just agree to disagree and allow other people to murder. From their point of view, it would be unethical for them not to do anything. That's why I see this as a never-ending issue, because those who see it that way will most likely never stop seeing it that way.

A lot of people act so stupid because they're horny or just don't use the proper protection. And get pregnant and don't care cuz they can just undo that in a day. Burn your ass? Sit on the blares!
Carry the baby for 9 months so you will know to be more careful next time you have sex and don't wanna get pregnant and at least give the baby up for adoption if you still don't want it after 9 months.

Lots of people that want children, can't have them or have to go through insane hoops, while stupid people seem to have kids or get pregnant every two months.

But it lives in the womb. That means it has a life. So taking its life is killing it.

But what's ironic is that, at least in my experiences, the very people who are very anti-choice because they think it's "murder" are also the ones who are supportive of the American wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. Not all of them, of course, but most of them, especially in the far-right Christian community, do support these issues. And they just don't go together.

No.

And that's as far as I'm going to explain it. I believe I've made my opinion clear.

Ah, but at only 2 months or a little over, the unborn baby/fetus has it's own individual heartbeat, and when a heartbeat is stopped, it is called: death. So yes, it is killing he or she (because it has it's own sex, too).

I feel that abortion should be a woman's right if her unborn baby is viable outside the womb.

Anyway, yea a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body...but not what to do with another body. A body with a heartbeat. Ending a heartbeat is ending life. It's killing. The heartbeat comes in at two months.

A woman should get to kill an unborn baby if it can live outside the womb? I don't think you meant to say that.

But it's not entirely another body; for at least a few months during the pregnancy, the fetus relies on its mother and isn't an independent life.

It technically is another body, a body that is not the woman's own. A body with a heart, that beats, and is a human body.

It technically is another body, a body that is not the woman's own. A body with a heart, that beats, and is a human body.