22 Mar 09
Originally posted by scherzoThats not true.
The human life does not really begin until the fetus matures. Before then it does not display human characteristics. It cannot take care of itself. It is physically dependent on the mother for food. It cannot see, and it still has a tail.
A cat for example, even after it is born, it can't see, it is dependent on the mother, and it has a tail. Does that mean it should be killed? No.
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by generalissimoAre we cats? Cats always have tails and for a much longer time, they are physically dependent on their mothers.
Thats not true.
A cat for example, even after it is born, it can't see, it is dependent on the mother, and it has a tail. Does that mean it should be killed? No.
And I generally don't support using embryonic cells, unless they're for research or the wife chooses to do so. A common misconception is that people who are not "pro-life" are "pro-death." We have the same regard for human life that anti-choice people do, but we are more forward-thinking and more pro-feminist.
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by scherzoyou really think the argument "it cannot take care of itself" can be a valid pro abortion argument? children cannot take care of themselves until they are at least 6. and then just barely. is the murder of a 6 year old justified?
Are we cats? Cats always have tails and for a much longer time, they are physically dependent on their mothers.
And I generally don't support using embryonic cells, unless they're for research or the wife chooses to do so. A common misconception is that people who are not "pro-life" are "pro-death." We have the same regard for human life that anti-choice people do, but we are more forward-thinking and more pro-feminist.
abortion should be allowed only in few cases. such as rapes or when the mother's health is threatened because if you die the child will die as well. otherwise the act of fukin should be considered a binding contract.
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziChildren can physically take care of themselves, in theory, at age 6. It is physically impossible before the third trimester or so. That's why many babies prematurely born before the beginning of that trimester have to be put on emergency care or risk death.
you really think the argument "it cannot take care of itself" can be a valid pro abortion argument? children cannot take care of themselves until they are at least 6. and then just barely. is the murder of a 6 year old justified?
abortion should be allowed only in few cases. such as rapes or when the mother's health is threatened because if you die the child will die as well. otherwise the act of fukin should be considered a binding contract.
Abortion should be allowed when the mother decides. It's her baby, and it's not against the law if she wants to donate an organ to science or have it removed, why should an unborn fetus before the third trimester be any different?
