ABORTION.......

Foxyfyre,
I did take the time to read through what you had written previously. I don't think I made any mistakes.

All in all, I can see where you are coming from and I respect your views. I myself agree that abortion is NOT a form of birth control. That is irresponsible and not what abortion is intended for.
I also agree that children deserve a good life once they are born; and that it is adult's responsibility to do everything possible to ensure them health, safety, and opportunities.

Where our opinions diverge is believing that there is no difference between an unborn child and a born child. I believe there is an appreciable difference.

I would dare to say that is at the crux at much arguement between people on both sides.

thx for taking the time to reply back, foxy

real life wrote:

,

At what point is an unborn child not worthy of protection? At one minute before birth? At two? At three minutes? At one day before birth? At two? Keep moving backward until you can answer: When?

When you have decided where to draw that magic line, can you tell us what took place at that magic moment to change his status from one that deserves protection to the status of one that can be sliced apart at whim?

I'll try to address your question to the best of my ability.
I'll start by making my stance clear:
A child that is born has/deserves full rights as a human being.
A child that is within a woman's body deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being. However: that developing child is part of the woman's body. Together; they are one. The child could not exist without the mother, IS actually the mother in many respects, and this is why I believe that the mother has full rights/decision power to choose what is in the best interest of that developing child. It is her body and her developing child. I believe in absolute parental rights during development.
Where I am; legal measures are taken to prevent 'slicing away at whim'. You can not be 7 months pregnants and shout "I decided I don't want the kid. I'm getting an abortion!"

Does that make sense to you reallife? You don't have to agree, but did I make myself clear on where I stand?

Quote:

and this is why I believe that the mother has full rights/decision power to choose what is in the best interest of that developing child. It is her body and her developing child. I believe in absolute parental rights during development.

Yes, kill the little bastard, its in his interest.

A child that is within a woman's body deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being.

The child could not exist without the mother, IS actually the mother in many respects, and this is why I believe that the mother has full rights/decision power to choose what is in the best interest of that developing child.

Where I am; legal measures are taken to prevent 'slicing away at whim'. You can not be 7 months pregnants and shout "I decided I don't want the kid. I'm getting an abortion!"

I don't think it's your position that bothers some people Frank, I think it's you.


I think you are correct, CK.

Quote:

But I think you're great. This site would absolutely suck without your exchanges with Intrepid, snood, MA, RL, etc...etc..etc

Thank you. I give it my best shot...as you know.

Why do people twist my words?!

Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not murder.

If I thought abortion was murder why in the world would I support the option?!

flushd wrote:

Why do people twist my words?!

Twist your words? Let's take a look at what you said...

"A child that is within a woman's body deserves respect and to be recognized as a living being."

So, said child = a living being, according to your definition (which leaves little room for interpretation, so spare me a rant saying I twisted your words here).

And, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, murder is (as a noun):

"unlawful premeditated killing of a living being [syn: homicide, slaying]"

Considering by your definition a child that is within a woman's body = a living being, we can substitute the phrase in accordingly...

"unlawful premeditated killing of a child that is within a woman's body"

There you have it. Direct, literal analysis with no "twisting". I'd ask for an apology, but it seems as if you're a little busy pounding your head against a wall.

Quote:

Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is not murder.

You say that, and yet your logic points in a completely different direction. Perhaps attempt to attain a little more consistency in your views, especially if you are going to assert them within a public medium such as this.

<<<<banging head against wall

I don't want to live in a world where others have more say over my body than I do myself.

Geez.

And at some point...you are actually going to explain why a perfectly legal abortion meets your standard of "an unlawful premeditated killing?"

Shouldn't you be offering the apology...rather than struting your mistake all over the Internet?

Good advice. Are you going to take it?

Are you pregnant?

Frank Apisa wrote:

And at some point...you are actually going to explain why a perfectly legal abortion meets your standard of "an unlawful premeditated killing?"

Here, let me rephrase it with the rest of the noun definition and verb definition as well to help you understand it a little better:

Said child = a living being, according to flushd's definition (which, again, leaves little room for interpretation).

And, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, murder is (as a verb):

"to kill a human being intentionally and with premeditation [syn: slay, hit]"

Considering by flushd's definition a child that is within a woman's body = a living being, we can substitute the phrase in accordingly (negating the possibility that you'd like to claim that the child is a living being, yet somehow not a human)...

"to kill a child that is within a woman's body intentionally and with premeditation"

Again with the secondary definition, murder is (as a noun):

"The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied"

And again we substitute the the phrase to get...

"The offense of killing a a child that is within a woman's body with aforethought, express or implied"

I hope that clarified it a little better.

Quote:

Shouldn't you be offering the apology...rather than struting your mistake all over the Internet?

1.) An apology for...what? Defending against claims that I "twisted words" around?

2.) The word "strutting" is actual spelled with two "t's." Perhaps next time you attempt a sly correction of another you should use spellchecker. Or not, it's not like you're being graded on punctuation or anything.

Quote:

Good advice. Are you going to take it?

Uh huh. Because my views are so inconsistent-- considering I've only a.) responded to flushd's views with some healthy comments to spark discussion, and thus b.) have yet to assert my own opinions definitively within said public medium.

In any case...if Flushed did agree that a living human being is present in a fetus...Flushed was incorrect. A fetus is not a living human being...it is a fetus.

Quote:

In any case...if Flushed did agree that a living human being is present in a fetus...Flushed was incorrect. A fetus is not a living human being...it is a fetus.

(m-w.com)
Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

Frank, what is the opposite of dead?
Is a fetus dead?