stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
So if they are too weak to be independent, it's OK to kill them. Survival of the fittest. And the unborn if unwanted are not fit to live, right?
How to cut abortion rates.
- Thread starter Mr Laurier
- Start date
Temujin
Well-known member
Wrong. You can either make up your own lies about what my opinion is or you can read what I actually write. If you've decided on the former there is not a lot of reason to talk to you.
Babies that survive birth are independent beings. Babies that don't survive birth are dead. Neither type is aborted. Abortions don't happen to babies. They happen to foetuses. Yes, the distinction does matter because it is illegal and immoral to kill a baby, while it is legal and morally justified to abort a foetus, where circumstances permit. You don't like the law? Tough. You don't like that people have different moral views to you? Tough. Stop whinging. The only way you will swing things in your direction is by persuading people who currently think like me to think like you. You are currently the most unpersuasive advocate against abortion I've come across, and I have to say that it is a strong field.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Nonsense. When my two sons were in my wife's womb and her doctor pointed to her sonogram, he said, "look at your BABY," not "look at your fetus." He had a medical degree from Emory University. Where did you get yours? K-Mart?
Temujin
Well-known member
More hysterical garbage from you.
I recently heard a senior obstetrician being interviewed on the radio talk about "having a baby sitting in your tummy". This statement is clear, but is also grossly inaccurate. The term "baby" is as wrong as the term "tummy" (and indeed (sitting). The reason for speaking like this is because it is easily understood by all classes and levels of education. It is friendly and approachable. It is accessible. It doesn't say squat about whether the foetus is actually a baby or whether it is actually sitting in the tummy.
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
In what universe?
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
indeed. Creationists fixate on their fantasies
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
So two seconds before he or she exits the birth canal, it's not a baby, and then PRESTO, instant baby! Or is it the cutting of the umbilical cord that automatically affords it protection? What diabolical rubbish.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
In the one we live in.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
So a woman in labor being rushed to the hospital, should holler out to the cabbie:
"My fetus is about to become a baby!"
Hilarious.
"My fetus is about to become a baby!"
Hilarious.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Click and scroll way down:
Temujin
Well-known member
More dishonesty. You have no answer to my point so you make up more garbage. When your children reach the age of thirteen, one minute after midnight PRESTO, instant teenager! Is that diabolical rubbish? Or are you just being hysterical because your arguments don't work?
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Correct. From 12 to 13 is a quantitative, not a qualitative transition. Explain how exiting the birth canal transforms a fetus into a baby. Is it merely a matter of terminology, like how a meteor is CALLED a meteorite after impact with Earth?
SteveB
Well-known member
yeah.... I don't know what schools you've attended growing up, but I remember sex education in school before you were in kindergarten, and none of it ever once said---- abstain from sex before you start.
I still remember the prettiest girl in the 7th grade (1972) coming to class one day saying she was pregnant, and being absolutely ecstatic about it. 12 years old.....
I don't recall her ever getting to the point where she started showing.
We had sex education back then.
I think the best way to cut the abortion rate is to simply stop aborting babies.
Or.... better still..... teach young boys that they'll have to take responsibility for their actions--- shotgun weddings come to mind.
Teach young girls that they're worth waiting for a guy who will actually love them, and stay with them for life.
Oh.... wait.... none of that worked did it.
My dad did the shotgun wedding, because my mom got pregnant with me, and they were divorced 3 children and 9 years later.
Stupidity isn't going to change until people stop doing stupid.
Temujin
Well-known member
There are several physiological processes during birth leading to the first breath. If you really want a threshold then that is it, according to legal precedent and ruling. In my opinion, this is a 9 month process that starts with something that is clearly not a person and ends with something that clearly is.
Foetus and baby are just labels with clear meanings. One applies before birth one after. The organism isn't affected by the label. You can try propaganda tactics if you wish, but the terms are clear enough.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
You mean someONE, not someTHING. Things don't have gender.
So it's a process. He or she in the womb is gradually endowed with personhood? Are they like 78% persons after 7 months from conception? OK to kill them then, right? Kind of like how it used to be OK to enslave Negroes, who were LABELED 3/5 human?
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
Sacred Heart Secondary.
And you would be correct that sex ed never said "abstain from sex before you start".
Your solution only affects the result, not the cause. Address the cause.
So continue as normal. Why?
So continue as before. Make the same mistake, and expect a different result.
BINGO!
What a sad thing.
BINGO!
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
Not the one I live in.
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
Your reliance on shock as a substitute for facts, fails to change facts. Your reliance on anti-choice propaganda, also fails.Click and scroll way down:
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
According to the bible, its a circumcision 8 days after the birth
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Same one. You do indeed live in a universe which contains your planet (Earth) which contains your country (Canada) where it is legal to pay someone to suck the brains out of the unborn.