It isn't that I consider it a child, that is what it is. I have challenged you to provide some credible evidence that suggests that unborns at any stage are not human beings and to date, you have not met the challenge.

And yet another shallow and terribly flawed argument. How "you" or the world sees a thing is irrelavent if the thing is not being viewed as it is. Once more, you make an appeal to popularity. There was a time when most of the people in the world thought it was flat or rested on the back of a great turtle, or some other such thing. Was the world actually flat or on the back of a great turtle because most of the people in the world thought it was?

There was a time when most of the people in the world thought that the sun was a shining being that rode a chariot across the sky. Was the sun actually a shining being riding across the sky because most of the people thought it was?

There was a time, and not so long ago, when most of the people in this country thought that blacks were not human beings and therfore it was perfectly acceptable to own them as property. Were blacks really not human beings and thus not deserving of any human rights simply because most of the people in this country thought that was true?

You don't think that unborns are human beings and yet, you can't provide a whit of credible evidence to support your position. The only support you can offer is that a great many others believe the same thing as you. Your argument is a logical fallacy and has no validity. You could validate it by providing some credible evience to support your belief but short of that you are expressing nothing more than your faith.

That unborns at any stage of development are human beings is not a moral view. It is a scientific fact.

The rest of your argument has no bearing on whether or not unborns are human beings and therefore entitled to have their human rights protected. It is nothing more than so much shuck and jive.

Are you arguing that it is acceptable in your view for one individual to take it upon themself to kill another individual in order to preserve resources?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Well, as I don't consider family planning, including the IUD, et al and abortion by Plan B and RU-485 and DNC to be murder, I will pick family planning over war, rape, pillage, and plunder when resources are likely to be scarce.

Many people are starving in the world, and I'm sure you are feeding your family 100 times the calories of tens of millions of people. Why don't you cut back on the number of food calories your family consumes by just 90% and send the saved calories to those who need the food? Maybe if you and the others who believe like you would do that for the Sudan, the conflict in Sudan's south and in its Darfur region would end. Clearly you think that you value life much more than I do, so you should be doing far more than I to spread the scarce resources around to all the people in the world that are dying from lack of resources.

That you consume so many resources suggests that you are perfectly happy to see the killing in the war and the death from starvation in Sudan, doesn't it?

Well, I can't get you to agree that if the embryo or fetus is a child it can be taken away from the woman who doesn't want, or can't care for it, so that someone else can give it the care that the woman who doesn't want it can.

Why would you demand that a crack addict be forced to keep the child when she is clearly abusing it for seven or maybe eight months, at which time the child says "I can't take it any more, and I'm going to leave even if I will die because this woman is just too abusive." Clearly the child should have taken responsibility for itself much earlier and chosen a different woman.

Or what of the woman who gets breast cancer and needs radiation and chemo - again you are going to demand that the woman keep the child even tho her medical care is going to really hurt the child.

I can't understand why you think that a woman must be forced to keep a child that she is clearly abusing and is likely to in the end kill.

But maybe you don't think that the child is really a child that deserves the same kind of protection as other children.

Then again, if you don't think that you have a moral responsibility to consume fewer resources so children won't die of starvation or war, then maybe you don't really care that much about whether children live or die????

A crack addict should be incarcerated anyway. Killing a child to save it from possible abuse is the sort of logic that only a shallow, hand wringing liberal could present and expect it to be accepted as reasonable.

Who ever said that if a woman's life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy, she shouldn't be allowed to terminate said pregnancy? Your arguments become more weak all the time mulp. Soon, you are just going to be whining and blubbering.

Abuse is illegal. If she is abusing, then she should be punished. We don't go about killing children who are abused or likely to be abused, we deal with the parents. Your logic fails even at the most basic level.

[quote=mulp;439049]But maybe you don't think that the child is really a child that deserves the same kind of protection as other children.[/quopte]

Emotional bloviation untouched by rational thought. Do you really believe that it is reasonable to kill a child who may be or is being abused to prevent possible abuse in the future? Is that really the way your mind works?

And that mewling appeal to emotion has exactly what to do with whether or not unborns at any stage of development are living human beings that have the same right to live as you?

Face it mulp, you have brought a butter knife to an intellecutal gun fight. You aren't up to this debate. You have not won a single point and now you are reduced to nothing more than a pitiful whining ad hominem attack on me based on nothing more than lies and slander you have fabricated about me from whole cloth since you know nothing about volunteer work I might or might not do within my own community or charities that I may or may not contribute to. Your whole argument has come down to a tearful, and entirely false, claim that I don't care about children while you stand there and, with a straight face, say that it is better to kill children who are, or may be abused to save them from abuse as if killing children for reasons amounting to no more than convenience didn't constitute the worst possible abuse.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

What you consider is completely irrelavent if you can't support your position. Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Can you prove that unborns are something other than human beings? If you can't, then you admit that your "consideration" is nothing more and nothing less than a fabrication you have provided for yourself to avoid the truth.


I either grow or hunt for 70% of what I and my family eat. What is your point? How about you? Or do you simply buy and complain about others who are also buying and offer that up as some sort of far fetched support for abortion? You really are over your head here mulp. You are losing this debate as miserably as anyone I have ever encountered.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

mi wishies mi coods ride pale lol

Unfortunately, you failed to link the consititution, or any part of it that indicates that being alive gives you the right to continue breathing absent all other circumstances. You defined life in a reasonably sufficent fashion, and it certainly is human... But no corolation to the constitutionality of it.

Your entire spiel about property rights fails. Human beings are not property. We don't own ourselves and there is ample legal precedent to back that up. If you care to try it, however, attempt to sell a kidney (which you claim is your property) to someone who needs it and has the money to pay (you should have no trouble finding takers). You will find that not only can you not sell parts of your body, that you are also not the owner. Your legal status is that of a steward or a caretaker of the body. You can not, however, own a thing and be the same thing at the same time.

Another fatal flaw in your argument is that the right to live was never based on the ownership of property. The poorest sharecropper had the right to live even though he had no right to vote on issues that involved property rights. Your right to live is, and never was dependent upon anything more than you being a human being.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Nice try, but you either missed or are obfuscating the point here. I NEVER said anything about the right to live resting on property ownership... I'm talking about rights in general. At the time of the writing of the constitution, what I have said is 100% accurate. It has to do with previously being the subjects of Lords and Kings. THEY owned your body, the land you lived on and the food you ate, so THEY had all the rights. It was VERY much a property rights issue at the founding.

It wasn't until the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which is NOT based on constitutional law, but commerce and maritime law, that we lost that bit of our sovereignty, which was absolutely granted to us by the founders.

I'm sorry if you have your head so far buried in the abortion issue that you haven't had time to properly research the circumstances surrounding our emancipation from the King, but these are FACTS.

You can run them around in circles all you want, it doesn't change that you are ignorant of the progression of law in this country. I was under the impression this was about the constitutionality of the right to live. Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees anyone the right to live. If you can, we can end all wars, abortions and capital punishment tomorrow. The best that can be dredged up is the "pursuit of life,...." And that is only in the Declaration of Independence.

Stick to the moral arguments, you will loose the Constitutional debate every time. Though I doubt you are capable of accepting that fact and will continue as you have... for how many years now?

Well stated.

Who were you before. You seem to have a long history here, but your ID says otherwise. Care to share?