Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
An unborn with a pending mother and a man killing his wife for nagging are completely different circumstances.
|
The circumstances are irrelavent so long as one is not an imminent threat to the other's life. A man killing his nagging wife, and a sniper firing randomly from a bell tower on a college campus are also completely different circumstances. Do you support one, but decry the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
If you gave equivalent rights to a zebra, would you not allow it to spit out it's fetus to survive while trying to out run a pack of hyenas? I'm not discouraging human rights I'm pointing out your place of persecution.
|
Zebras have no right to live, human beings do? And I am no more persecuting a woman for killing her child out of convenience than you are persecuting a man who kills his wife for nagging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
It is the very same state but in turn a reverse form. The unborn is coming to life, while the dieing is going from life. In that state they need an outside source to live until they are better or dead. The mother should even have a better reason to abort a baby because it can go into something to benefit that comatose relative.
|
The unborn is already alive and in 98% of cases is perfectly healthy. Being alive and perfectly healty is not analogous to being sick or injured beyond any reasonable expectation of recovery. If that is the basis for your support of abortion, your reasoning is flawed. Or is this just one of many things you will throw against the wall in hope of finding something that sticks?
You need an outside source to live. We all do. Dependence is not a valid reason to kill. If it were, we would need no life support equipment because at the point you were unable to feed and take care of yourself, you would be history. Oh, wait. You are in that state when you are born but we can't just kill you because you have a right to live.
And tell me, are you in favor of other forms of human experimentation without the permission of the one being experimented on or just on this particular segment of the population?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
I do not believe in pointless murder. I believe in natural selection and in turn I don't see why you are encouraging the existence of another unwanted mouth to feed. Abortion is a choice, not a mandatory requirement.
|
Natural selection is a specious argument at best. If you favor natural selection, then you would be suggesting that we not respond to single car accidents because the drivier is obviously not a good driver and natural selection has removed him from the gene pool. You also would not favor any sort of public assistance since that would certainly thwart nature's selection of the weak or the unfit. Is that really your stance, or is it just a hypocritical attempt to substantiate your position.
Your right to live is not based on whether you are wanted or not. You have the right to live because you are a human being and your right to live trumps any right that anyone else may invoke so long as you are not an imminent threat to their life.
And killing a nagging wife with a .38 or firing randomly at students from a college belltower is also a choice, not a mandantory requirement. Do you really support the choice to kill another human being for any or no reason, or do you just support this sort of killing because your personal politics demands it whether you can fashion a reasonable argument to defend it or not? I have to tell you, so far, you haven't even come close to a reasonable argument. Comparing a perfectly healthy human being to comatose relatives, dying pets and zebras is pretty weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
The Unborn still does the very same thing as a parasite, Living off another to live. And yes mothers can become crippled or die from child birth while the baby can leave unscathed. But I will say stillbirths occur so the baby doesn't sound like the infallible nemesis.
|
We have already established that your argument is weak and inaccurate. So far, it has consisted of one misrepresentation after another so your insistence on calling unborns parasites even though they clearly are not isn't surprising. Why didn't you just say up front that you support allowing women to kill their children without legal consequence for any or no reason and save yourself the embarrassment of this argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
So all in all I will say that if there was an abundance of benevolent housings for unwanted children my views wouldn't be so stark and inhumane, but reality is not in favor.
|
The wating lists to adopt infants are years long in every state. Further, that argument represents yet another logical fallacy since it begs the question and must assume that all women who might otherwise have an abortion would give up their children. Statistically speaking, women who intend to give up their child for whatever reason rarely do it once the child is born. Women develop an emotional attatchment to their child and your assumption that women would be giving them up in droves if abortion were outlawed is baseless.
Aside from that, it is interesting that you fabricate all of these very weak arguments to justify your position and then at the end, you simply admit that you are inhumane for no better reason than that you believe that somehow your right to live is based on the availability of "benevolent" housing.