Re: 'More interested in power than in justice'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterhawk
No one is killing babies, people often use the wrong word to describe things. Abortion is the termination of an organism.
Sorry, but no matter how many dictionaries you refer to, no matter how you try to pretty-up the concept, it all boils down to killing a human being that came into being at the point of conception and I am against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterhawk
Coincidentally, the definition of abortion also includes miscarriages, so shall we begin jailing women for having them?
A silly argument that avoid the fact that abortion intentionally kills a baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterhawk
The true question is who bears right & responsibility for the decision making on behalf of a fetus.
No, the only question is for the mother and is "Do I want to kill this human being I'm carrying or let it live?" I don't think she should be able to make that choice any more than she should be able to make the "choice" to drown them in the bathtub after they are born.
Re: 'More interested in power than in justice'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmonk
Sorry, but no matter how many dictionaries you refer to, no matter how you try to pretty-up the concept, it all boils down to killing a human being that came into being at the point of conception and I am against it.
I am not trying to "pretty up" anything as you infer. That implies that I am attempting to hide something in the argument. I am not. I presented definitions of the terms you were using in order to clarify passion from fact. Abortion is not the killing of a baby, infant or child. It is the termination of a developmental embryo.
You are against the termination of an organism in its developmental stage. Good for you and well done on stating your point. I wonder if your passion extends to simply fertilized eggs. I am curious to see your answer to that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMonk
A silly argument that avoid the fact that abortion intentionally kills a baby.
No, sorry. While to point I was making was that in this day in age where people claim context is so key, it seemed ironic that this portion of the definition has slipped out of any conversation. However I concede that it does not need to be a part of this discussion.
However abortion is not the intentional killing of a baby. Intended Abortion is the intentional termination of a fetus. Abortion is a term that encompasses any termination of an organism, intended or unintended. You truly need to stop calling a fetus a baby as that implies sentience and rights. At what point do you wish to offer human rights to a developmental embryo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMonk
No, the only question is for the mother and is "Do I want to kill this human being I'm carrying or let it live?" I don't think she should be able to make that choice any more than she should be able to make the "choice" to drown them in the bathtub after they are born.
Again the mother is not killing a baby, unless you can find a single scientific fact that defines a baby as a developmental embryo. Your passion allows you to blur the definition of terms so that you may substantiate your point. However, again, a baby has been born, left the womb, capable of sustaining life without bioligical attachment to the mother, i.e. womb or cord.
We have laws against killing people, but we aren't talking about people. We are talking about a developmental embryo.
My previous question is still the point of the debate no matter how you wish to misuse terms in order to muster emotion on your argument's behalf.
Who is the initial caretaker of a fetus' rights, if they are entitled to any, and if the parent does not gain initial right, then who does and at what point do they transfer to the parent?
My point here is that it is not a decision for the state to make, it is the woman and or parents to make the decision.
Again, I am not intending to offend which many people will take from this statement. I am just making an objective argument without passion or pretense.