When Does Life Begin?

P.s. - Still no responce from the Pro-life crown about cryostasis for embryos? How many times must I post a question...

Chumly,

Do you support the 'right' to kill a baby that is a few seconds away from being completely separated from the woman's body?

If you do not support partial birth abortion, then at exactly what point do you think abortion should be illegal?

real life wrote:

Chumly,

Do you support the 'right' to kill a baby that is a few seconds away from being completely separated from the woman's body?

If you do not support partial birth abortion, then at exactly what point do you think abortion should be illegal?

Now Real - you know you're not gonna get that one answered!!! :wink:

How's life?

real life wrote:

Do you support the 'right' to kill a baby that is a few seconds away from being completely separated from the woman's body?

real, Show us when this occurs, and how many times a woman chooses to abort a few seconds away from birth>?

...Still no responce from the Pro-life crowd about cryostasis for embryos? How many times must I post a question...

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life wrote:

Do you support the 'right' to kill a baby that is a few seconds away from being completely separated from the woman's body?

real, Show us when this occurs, and how many times a woman chooses to abort a few seconds away from birth>?

from the Supreme Court opinion on the partial birth abortion issue: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:M29LfndYw-cJ:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf+partial+birth+abortion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us

Quote:

The baby is outside the mother's body, except for the head which is still in the cervix.

Then, the abortionist punctures the skull and sucks the brains out with a vacuum.



Where is this legal?

for State Bans on Partial Birth Abortion as of August 1, 2007 see http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=10&ind=461

They cite as a source for these stats a pro-abortion public relations and research firm :

Sources: Alan Guttmacher Institute, State Policies in Brief, "Bans on ''Partial Birth'' Abortion," as of August 1, 2007

real, That procedure is used to save the mother's life.

You are talking about an "illegal act." Good try, but no cupie doll for you!

Diest TKO wrote:

...Still no responce from the Pro-life crowd about cryostasis for embryos? How many times must I post a question...

BUMP

I'm not letting this one go.

T
K
O

What q are you talking about? It seems real is the one not answering Deist's question.

Do you support the 'right' to kill a baby that is a few seconds away from being completely separated from the woman's body?

If you do not support partial birth abortion, then at exactly what point do you think abortion should be illegal?

Good to hear from you Wolf.

Pro-abortion zealots like CI support abortion up to the point of birth. So, my question was an attempt to get him to defend his belief.

It appears he won't.

Whether partial birth abortion is legal or not, zealots like CI think that abortion should ALWAYS be available, up to the point of birth. It is the 'mother's right' that is paramount.

Even if the baby is a few seconds from being born.

Or even if the woman isn't actually carrying the child at all, in fact.

If a child were to grow the entire nine months OUTSIDE the mothers womb (in a lab for instance), CI still would not concede that the child had a right to life at ANY POINT, and could be destroyed by whatever barbaric method one chose.

Right, CI?

Why?

Because to concede that the child had a right to live at any point would be to go down a road that the pro-abortion crowd just can't afford to.

If the unborn is recognized as a living human being with rights at ANY point, their party is over.

real life wrote:

Good to hear from you Wolf.

Pro-abortion zealots like CI support abortion up to the point of birth. So, my question was an attempt to get him to defend his belief.

It appears he won't.

Whether partial birth abortion is legal or not, zealots like CI think that abortion should ALWAYS be available, up to the point of birth. It is the 'mother's right' that is paramount.

Even if the baby is a few seconds from being born.

Or even if the woman isn't actually carrying the child at all, in fact.

If a child were to grow the entire nine months OUTSIDE the mothers womb (in a lab for instance), CI still would not concede that the child had a right to life at ANY POINT, and could be destroyed by whatever barbaric method one chose.

Right, CI?

Why?

Because to concede that the child had a right to live at any point would be to go down a road that the pro-abortion crowd just can't afford to.

If the unborn is recognized as a living human being with rights at ANY point, their party is over.

But an unborn is not a living "human being" with the same rights at any other point in their lives. Now it is human, it is alive, but it is at no point a human being. It is not a person. It is a collection of cells that cannot be proven to have any of the characteristics of humans.

It has none of the internal flora and fauna that paradoxically contribute to what make us human.

Pro-abortionists make a good point. The mother should have the right to do it. She shouldn't have to go to a backyard clinic and die under hygienic conditions.

Anti-abortionists focus on the problem at the wrong end. You don't want abortion to be carried out unnecessarily? Get rid of abstinence-only education, as it just isn't working (research has shown it isn't working). Ensure that if abstinence is taught, it must be taught alongside all other methods like condom use, intrauterine methods, hormonal methods, behavioural methods etc.

Make abortion illegal by all means. Argue against it. Condemn those who have it. Won't do you a shred of good. People will still seek it out.