Who decided that the mother's "rights" outweighed the baby's rights?

[G o a t b o y]

Every year there are 46 million abortions performed worldwide.  As I said in another thread, imagine if that number translated into new people arriving on this overcrowded planet every year. The idea is mindboggling. Since these are all unwanted babies, chances are at least half of them would be born into poverty to unfit mothers, A huge percentage of these would probably end up in the social welfare system. And how could you possibly place so many millions into adoptive homes... there aren't enough to fill the needs of today's children?  You may not like the idea of abortion, but consider what the world would look like without it.

This argument makes too much sense, Deedee... most knee-jerk reactionaries are incapable of seeing the larger picture.  All they know is that their preacher says "abortion=bad".

[G o a t b o y]

This week there was a baby born at 21 weeks gestation. All but 2 states allow abortion to happen past those 21 weeks. That is a baby, alive and kicking.

So you would have no problem, then, eliminating an embryo at say, 3 weeks, or a fetus at 14 weeks, since in both cases you could not have a "baby, alive and kicking"? 

[militarymuscle69]

So you would have no problem, then, eliminating an embryo at say, 3 weeks, or a fetus at 14 weeks, since in both cases you could not have a "baby, alive and kicking"? 

I was using the 21 week baby as an example. I personaly believe life begins at conception. And I don't have a preacher to tell me that. On the topic of "big picture" the same thing goes for gay marriage. Libs say, "it doesn't effect me", but don't consider how it could affect generations to come. In the biggest picture we need ot try to get people to be more responsible about safe sex and birth control. Until then each baby should have the right to live.

[ieffinhatecardio]

That has to be dealt with I understand that. But do really support murdering babies because we don't have room? Why stop there? we have thousands of handicapped people that can't contribute to socitey and just sit in assisted living homes until death. Where do you make the distinction?

Come on, why can't we have a real debate instead of this idiocy? Did you really need to bring up the handicapped people analogy? 

Deal with the problem, who is going to raise these millions of babies and who will support and nurture them? This is the real problem with your point of view yet you don't seem to have an answer.

[G o a t b o y]

Until then each baby should have the right to live.

I'll ask my question again, "Who decided a fetus was a baby?"  Your original answer would have been fine if you wanted to restrict the discussion to abortions performed at 21 weeks or later, but's that's not the case since you're clearly opposing abortion at all stages from conception on.  So the question stands.

[militarymuscle69]

I'll ask my question again, "Who decided a fetus was a baby?"  Your original answer would have been fine if you wanted to restrict the discussion to abortions performed at 21 weeks or later, but's that's not the case since you're clearly opposing abortion at all stages from conception on.  So the question stands.

Like someone posted earlier, science has proven that a fetus is a baby.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I was using the 21 week baby as an example. I personaly believe life begins at conception. And I don't have a preacher to tell me that. On the topic of "big picture" the same thing goes for gay marriage. Libs say, "it doesn't effect me", but don't consider how it could affect generations to come. In the biggest picture we need ot try to get people to be more responsible about safe sex and birth control. Until then each baby should have the right to live.

Since you're being so altruistic regarding the issue of Gay Marriage do you feel the same way about environmental issues? Are you worried about taking better care of the planet so that it won't affect generations to come?

[mightymouse72]

I've yet to see any opponents to abortion reply to this post, specifically the second paragraph.

I love the fact that these same people that won't actually acknowledge what Deedee mentioned are the same people that don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt. They have no problem flooding the world with unwanted babies but don't want them to be adopted by "queers".

i would reply if it made sense.
sounds like dee-dee is in favor of population control.
ok, then.  let's start aborting every 5th child conceived.  i mean, we don't wont to have too many people living. 

how does anyone know what God has planned for a child? everyone keeps speculating the child will end up like this or that.  how do you know?  you don't.  you just assume that if the child was conceived "accidentally" that the baby has no chance of living a valuable life so the "fetus" might as well be terminated.

and to pull your comment, no one has answered my question either:
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??

[mightymouse72]

I'll ask my question again, "Who decided a fetus was a baby?" 

God

[ieffinhatecardio]

i would reply if it made sense.
sounds like dee-dee is in favor of population control.
ok, then.  let's start aborting every 5th child conceived.  i mean, we don't wont to have too many people living. 

how does anyone know what God has planned for a child? everyone keeps speculating the child will end up like this or that.  how do you know?  you don't.  you just assume that if the child was conceived "accidentally" that the baby has no chance of living a valuable life so the "fetus" might as well be terminated.

and to pull your comment, no one has answered my question either:
what did the baby do to deserve the death penalty??

More inane rhetoric.

What are you going to do with the babies? Who's going to care for, nurture and raise them? Why won't you answer the question? You don't want abortions then you have to have a workable plan for the millions of new babies, right?

[militarymuscle69]

Since you're being so altruistic regarding the issue of Gay Marriage do you feel the same way about environmental issues? Are you worried about taking better care of the planet so that it won't affect generations to come?

Very much so, I do my best to buy ethanol but now have heard that it is worse than regular gas. I try to recycle, and am the Environmental Control Officer for my unit. I do what I can in my little piece of the world.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Very much so, I do my best to buy ethanol but now have heard that it is worse than regular gas. I try to recycle, and am the Environmental Control Officer for my unit. I do what I can in my little piece of the world.

Good, I'm glad to hear that. I'm the same way. It's a constant fight to get everyone in the house to recycle everything, especially those plastic bags you get from the grocery store.

[militarymuscle69]

Good, I'm glad to hear that. I'm the same way. It's a constant fight to get everyone in the house to recycle everything, especially those plastic bags you get from the grocery store.

Commisary only uses paper. what point you trying to make?

[mightymouse72]

More inane rhetoric.

What are you going to do with the babies? Who's going to care for, nurture and raise them? Why won't you answer the question? You don't want abortions then you have to have a workable plan for the millions of new babies, right?

how do you want me to answer.  you want names and phone numbers?  it's a dumb question.  what kind of answer would satisfy you?
dude, it's murder.  you don't kill people because society doesn't have a place to put them.  have some morals.
like mm69 stated, you want to start offing elderly people or handicapped if there's no room in the nursing home??
why do you care anyway where society puts "unwanted" children??  your willing to kill them for no other reason than "there's no room".

it's funny you mention this.  i watched a program on discovery channel last nite on this very topic.
there was a husband and wife that took in 27 handicapped, and unwanted babies and are still raising them.

God will always provide.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Commisary only uses paper. what point you trying to make?

My point was that many people of a certain political persuasion don't think in terms of protecting the earth for future generations and when you mentioned future generations in your gay marriage quip I thought I'd see if you were consistent in your beliefs.

[militarymuscle69]

My point was that many people of a certain political persuasion don't think in terms of protecting the earth for future generations and when you mentioned future generations in your gay marriage quip I thought I'd see if you were consistent in your beliefs.

Understood, I think you will find I don't fall into a hard political party line. I tend to be more conservative in many things yet don't like government censorship. I don't worry so much about my lifetime or my son's but have bad feelings about the way culture will be whe my grandkids (assuming I will have some) are my age.

[ieffinhatecardio]

how do you want me to answer.  you want names and phone numbers?  it's a dumb question.  what kind of answer would satisfy you?
dude, it's murder.  you don't kill people because society doesn't have a place to put them.  have some morals.
like mm69 stated, you want to start offing elderly people or handicapped if there's no room in the nursing home??
why do you care anyway where society puts "unwanted" children??  your willing to kill them for no other reason than "there's no room".

it's funny you mention this.  i watched a program on discovery channel last nite on this very topic.
there was a husband and wife that took in 27 handicapped, and unwanted babies and are still raising them.

God will always provide.

This is the first I noticed that there's a MM69 and a MM72. Thanks for enlightening me.

As for the rest of your post it's ridiculous of course, and the fact that you would even mention the handicapped or elderly analogy essentially proves you have no reasoned answer.

These are the facts, you want to end abortions. Great, I can respect your views on that but you have to have a workable plan for what will happen to the millions of new and unwanted babies when we don't have enough homes for the unwanted babies we have now. These are the facts and there is no disputing them.

I will ask again, what workable plan do you have for housing, nurturing and caring for millions of new unwanted babies?


P.S. I bet you'll never have an answer.

P.S.S. That only makes your argument even weaker than it already is.

[Fury]

I'm tired of people trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies to be honest.

Anyone notice how it's always men commenting on abortion?

[militarymuscle69]

This is the first I noticed that there's a MM69 and a MM72. Thanks for enlightening me.

As for the rest of your post it's ridiculous of course, and the fact that you would even mention the handicapped or elderly analogy essentially proves you have no reasoned answer.

These are the facts, you want to end abortions. Great, I can respect your views on that but you have to have a workable plan for what will happen to the millions of new and unwanted babies when we don't have enough homes for the unwanted babies we have now. These are the facts and there is no disputing them.

I will ask again, what workable plan do you have for housing, nurturing and caring for millions of new unwanted babies?


P.S. I bet you'll never have an answer.

P.S.S. That only makes your argument even weaker than it already is.

You really can't say that the elderly and handicapped argument doesn't have legs (no pun intended). There once was a time that they would kill "retarded" people. But over time we made room for them to live out their lives how ever long that may be. Now I don't recall mentioning the elderly, but the handicapped that cannot function in society are still given the right to live. I never said that keeping all the babies would be easy. All I say is room or not, who are we to decide if that baby gets a chance or not? I will also pose the question like someone else did in one of these threads. If a person has a 3 year old that they no longer "want" can they kill that baby to avoid making it a "burden" on society?

[Camel Jockey]

Of course the anti-abortion people don't have any sort of solution. They want to judge woman's right to choose, yet they don't want to offer any sort solution for all those unwanted children. The brunt of caring for that unwanted child will fall on the shoulders of the mother and no one else. Mm72 or mm69 are pretty vocal when it comes to saying "abortion is muder" but will they be there to assit the mother in raising that kid?

All I'm saying is that it's easy to pass judgment when your ass wont be one having to deal with the problem.

[militarymuscle69]

Of course the anti-abortion people don't have any sort of solution. They want to judge woman's right to choose, yet they don't want to offer any sort solution for all those unwanted children. The brunt of caring for that unwanted child will fall on the shoulders of the mother and no one else. Mm72 or mm69 are pretty vocal when it comes to saying "abortion is muder" but will they be there to assit the mother in raising that kid?

All I'm saying is that it's easy to pass judgment when your ass wont be one having to deal with the problem.

But you didn't answer my first question. What makes the woman's "rights" trump that of the "baby"?

[Camel Jockey]

If a person has a 3 year old that they no longer "want" can they kill that baby to avoid making it a "burden" on society?

Of course not, as that child has already existed for 3 years.  

[Camel Jockey]

But you didn't answer my first question. What makes the woman's "rights" trump that of the "baby"?

Umm, its her baby? 

[ieffinhatecardio]

You really can't say that the elderly and handicapped argument doesn't have legs (no pun intended). There once was a time that they would kill "retarded" people. But over time we made room for them to live out their lives how ever long that may be. Now I don't recall mentioning the elderly, but the handicapped that cannot function in society are still given the right to live. I never said that keeping all the babies would be easy. All I say is room or not, who are we to decide if that baby gets a chance or not? I will also pose the question like someone else did in one of these threads. If a person has a 3 year old that they no longer "want" can they kill that baby to avoid making it a "burden" on society?

Perhaps you didn't mention the elderly but MM72 did when he was referencing your handicapped analogy.

Are you honestly going to use that "mother killing her 3 year old" analogy when talking about abortion? Do you really want to do that?

If you say yes then you aren't intellectually prepared to have this debate. Same for the "killing handicapped" analogy. 

[militarymuscle69]

Perhaps you didn't mention the elderly but MM72 did when he was referencing your handicapped analogy.

Are you honestly going to use that "mother killing her 3 year old" analogy when talking about abortion? Do you really want to do that?

If you say yes then you aren't intellectually prepared to have this debate. Same for the "killing handicapped" analogy. 

You tell me the difference? why is 3 years of life different from 2 weeks. And if Camel Jockey's argument is "it's her kid" then when that kid is 3, 4, 10, 14 etc. it is still "her kid" so why can't she off him/her then?