pregnancy means a woman having a 'living unborn human being within her body through the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth.'So spontaneous miscarriages in the early weeks after conception, which end millions of pregnancies each year -- sometimes without the mother ever knowing she was pregnant -- are probably considered the number one public health problem by these folks, right? I mean, if they're being consistent about this. Spontaneous abortion isn't the #1 HEALTH problem, it's the #1 CRIME! Now we can charge women with murder if we SUSPECT that spontaneous abortion wasn't so spontaneous after all. Muahahahaahh. Good for South Dakota. It's nice to see state legislation in action, voicing the will of its constituents. When babies die in the womb, it's a tragedy - just ask any woman who's had a miscarriage. There's a big difference between an unborn infant dying in the woman, and someone going in and cracking his head open, sucking his brains out, and dismembering him. The fact that you throw him into a trash can instead of into a grave doesn't change things. First off, that whole dismembering thing is for very late term abortions which are exceedingly rare. A spontaneous abortion would never be possible at that time. My point was for realsies: How do we know this woman didn't try to harm her fetus because she had no access to a medical procedure? Wire hanger anyone? It's interesting how many homosexuals are militant, fired-up pro aborts. When babies die in the womb, it's a tragedy - just ask any woman who's had a miscarriage.Yeah, I've been through this myself -- you don't have to lecture me about how tragic it is, thanks. That's not the point, though. My question was, if the whole argument against abortion rests on the full personhood of an embryo starting from the very moment it's concieved, then why aren't anti-abortion activists working to protect those children, too? Think of it -- one in three pregnancies is estimated to end in a spontaneous miscarriage, some within days after conception -- before the mother even knows she's concieved. All those babies dying! Aren't you concerned? Statistically, it's probably the biggest plague on earth! Another way to put it is this ... There's a big difference between an unborn infant dying in the woman, and someone going in and cracking his head open, sucking his brains out, and dismembering him.There's a big difference, sure, but does it make any difference to the infant? If what you're concerned about is protecting infants in the womb, then I don't see why it makes sense to distinguish between natural and unnatural causes of death, especially since so many more unborn infants die of natural causes than are aborted. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the practice of abortion. But I happen to think that the common justification used by anti-abortion folks -- t... The embryo doesn't care if it's killed by an abortionist or by failure to implant properly, so why are you concerned about protecting one and not the other?Sometimes babies die. It happens. We do our best to stop it, but it's a fact of life. it's the difference between a tragedy, where no one is culpable, and a murder, where one person knowlingly takes the life of another. So, you're saying if there were a disease going around killing one in every four people, it wouldn't be a problem that we ought to react to, just because it was a "tragedy" and nobody's fault? Because that's what's happening to embryos. If you really think an embryo is a person, then what's the difference? To clarify, I don't think that this: We do our best to stop itis true in the case of early-term spontaneous miscarriages. In fact I don't think anyone's doing anything to stop it. Yet it claims thousands of times as many embryos' lives as abortion. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Are you saying there is some kind of extra onus on the part of pregnant women to prove that they're doing their best to keep their babies alive, and not taking undue risks or knowingly partaking in activities that could have a discernable negative effect on the child growing within them? I just want to interject: about embryos that spontaneously abort... they abort for very good reasons and we couldn't rescue them. And yes, if all abortion is illegal, how can we know this woman didn't try to cause her own abortion? Wouldn't all abortions and miscarriages be suspect? Because you know, making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It just makes abortion really unsafe. Are you saying there is some kind of extra onus on the part of pregnant women to prove that they're doing their best to keep their babies alive, and not taking undue risks or knowingly partaking in activities that could have a discernable negative effect on the child growing within them?Not exactly. I'm saying that if you believe embryos are people, then, for consistency's sake, you should be just as worried about the fate of embryos that die spontaneously as you are about embryos that die via abortion. Because you know, making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It just makes abortion really unsafe.It's hard to find an analog to this. Abortion is so increadibly out there morally, and it's pretty much the extreme in our society. It's an epidemic of infanticide. It's been legalized in our country, and in many other "civilized" countries around the world - by those who would elevate convenience above the right to life. Obviously when you make certain activities illegal, it doesn't stop those activities from happening. Sure, there might be detrimental effects for those who would choose to act outside the law. I'm not saying that every law is right. Marijuanna being ou... Good for South Dakota. It's nice to see state legislation in action, voicing the will of its constituentsSecond That. |
View the Top Clips from October 19, 2006
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
