When is Pro-Life pro-life?

[Lucy Hamilton]

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

You mean like you do when you eat meat?

People who eat bunny rabbits are evil and should just be taken out and shot where they stand

Some bunny rabbits are taking matters into their own hands, stopping the evil bastards who want to kill them and eat them.

Is it any wonder some poor bunny rabbits have become deranged? Wouldn't you become deranged if groups of evil bastards wanted to kill you and eat you?

 

[task0778]

What is it when an innocent person is condemned to die through a faulty justice system - in some cases criminally so? An innocent person dies and unlike an embryo, is aware of his innocence it every single second?

Now you're on to an argument. Instead of trying to push a moral equivalency between a child in utero and a convicted killer. You could try the alternate argument that the foetus in utero is less than human due to its inability to perceive its own innocence.

In that way, the killing of a feotus becomes legal based on the accepted principles of the culture.

That's not am argument I've seen before. I am not sure about it. But some sort of sentience and awareness seems like a requirement for "humanity" beyond species. If absence of brain waves marks death, then presence should mark the beginning of life.

But ethically, here's what you have. A child in utero that is by definition "innocent". A convicted murderer (convicted by a system known to be faulty) who may or may not be innocent - we just don't know.

If you err on the side of innocence - that no innocent life should be willfully taken, then they are morally equivalent.

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Most doctors will tell you that sentience (the ability to feel) begins somewhere around the 24th month of life, although some say it may begin earlier than that. As for living, any ultrasound will prove that.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Abortion is fundamentally driven by modern promiscuity and irresponsible sex habits of teens, unwed mothers, liberated single party girls, and their frat boy associates.

Abortion is governed by bad SCOTUS law which mandates all states to follow a permissive standard of law.

In accordance with a literal reading of the U.S. Constitution abortion is relegated to the States to decide what limitations and procedures they want to follow in their states.

The foolish b!tch who was Roe in Roe V. Wade recently died. It would have been better for the U.S.A. had she never been born. She repudiated all the positions in her law suit that went to the SCOTUS and became an emotional fallacy argument that the Burger Court swallowed in a moment of Judiciary activism.

A good reason for having an abortion is due to rape or incest (which is also rape), or an abnormally deformed fetus.

In the case of a stupid teenager I would favor abortion too, since the single mother status is likely to destroy the child-mother's life, and also be detrimental to the baby as well.

I don't have a problem with infanticide for deformed babies either. There is essentially no difference. Better to start over. And then if it keeps happening get sterilized and then adopt instead.

That's the whole argument for and against abortion.

The people of any given state should be empowered to decide how they want to deal with abortion and to what extent they want to allow it and what regulations to put upon it.

I actually agree with you.

 

[ConservativeAmerica]

Discussions like this chill me to the bone.

Leftists making it clear that they can't distinguish between innocent unborn lives, and the lives of those who commit atrocities, says so, so much about their politics. They're admitting they have zero moral compass, which explains . . . pretty much everything about leftism.


For the record, there is no contradiction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, given that those who are eligible for the death penalty have proven themselves to be sub-human.

 

[yiostheoy]

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

You mean like you do when you eat meat?

I don't eat humans.

Not yet anyway.

So it's ok to kill and eat sentient beings, just not humans... yet. Got it.

If I had to kill and eat a human to stay alive I would.

I think I would pick a really dumb one to kill and eat though.

I feel less sorry for idiots than for really bright people who are able to enunciate both sides of a given issue.

 

[Mudda]

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Well if you can divorce yourself from any sympathy for it then you can probably kill anything without feeling too bad about it.

Uncle Sam needs you.

You mean like you do when you eat meat?

I don't eat humans.

Not yet anyway.

So it's ok to kill and eat sentient beings, just not humans... yet. Got it.

If I had to kill and eat a human to stay alive I would.

I think I would pick a really dumb one to kill and eat though.

I feel less sorry for idiots than for really bright people who are able to enunciate both sides of a given issue.

Here's a stab in the dark: you own more than one gun and have a really big knife also.

 

[Chuz Life]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

Where do you libtardz get this idea from that any human being's basic human rights are contingent upon how much or how little snyone else "cares" about them?

 

[Chuz Life]

What is it when an innocent person is condemned to die through a faulty justice system - in some cases criminally so? An innocent person dies and unlike an embryo, is aware of his innocence it every single second?

Now you're on to an argument. Instead of trying to push a moral equivalency between a child in utero and a convicted killer. You could try the alternate argument that the foetus in utero is less than human due to its inability to perceive its own innocence.

In that way, the killing of a feotus becomes legal based on the accepted principles of the culture.

That's not am argument I've seen before. I am not sure about it. But some sort of sentience and awareness seems like a requirement for "humanity" beyond species. If absence of brain waves marks death, then presence should mark the beginning of life.

But ethically, here's what you have. A child in utero that is by definition "innocent". A convicted murderer (convicted by a system known to be faulty) who may or may not be innocent - we just don't know.

If you err on the side of innocence - that no innocent life should be willfully taken, then they are morally equivalent.

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Most doctors will tell you that sentience (the ability to feel) begins somewhere around the 24th month of life, although some say it may begin earlier than that. As for living, any ultrasound will prove that.

How many of those doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even half the prognosis for a "normal" life that a typical unaware child in the womb has?

 

[Coyote]

Discussions like this chill me to the bone.

Leftists making it clear that they can't distinguish between innocent unborn lives, and the lives of those who commit atrocities, says so, so much about their politics. They're admitting they have zero moral compass, which explains . . . pretty much everything about leftism.


For the record, there is no contradiction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, given that those who are eligible for the death penalty have proven themselves to be sub-human.

That is being dishonest.

 

[Coyote]

When is Pro-Life pro-life?

When you care about the baby and the mother at least as much as you care about the fetus.

and you care about the innocent condemned man as much as you care about the fetus.

Where do you libtardz get this idea from that any human being's basic human rights are contingent upon how much or how little snyone else "cares" about them?

Can you engage in a discussion with "libtardz" and other slurs?

 

[Coyote]

Chuz Life

How can you justify the death penalty knowing that innocent human beings end up getting killed?

 

[task0778]

What is it when an innocent person is condemned to die through a faulty justice system - in some cases criminally so? An innocent person dies and unlike an embryo, is aware of his innocence it every single second?

Now you're on to an argument. Instead of trying to push a moral equivalency between a child in utero and a convicted killer. You could try the alternate argument that the foetus in utero is less than human due to its inability to perceive its own innocence.

In that way, the killing of a feotus becomes legal based on the accepted principles of the culture.

That's not am argument I've seen before. I am not sure about it. But some sort of sentience and awareness seems like a requirement for "humanity" beyond species. If absence of brain waves marks death, then presence should mark the beginning of life.

But ethically, here's what you have. A child in utero that is by definition "innocent". A convicted murderer (convicted by a system known to be faulty) who may or may not be innocent - we just don't know.

If you err on the side of innocence - that no innocent life should be willfully taken, then they are morally equivalent.

Everyone is "pro-life", the anti-choice people have simply mis-appropriated the term because they are too ashamed to call their movement what it is, the anti-choice movement, part of Christian Sharia Law.

From the perspective of the unborn, it's pro-life. You can play word games all you want, the fact is that an abortion is an unsanctioned death penalty on a human life, and whether that individual is still in the mother's womb is irrelevant. I believe it says something about our society when we are so careless with our disregard for the murder of the defenseless. Far better IMHO to dispense free birth control methods to prevent conception in the 1st place.

Not everyone sees fetuses the way you do. Personally, I see no proof that it's a conscious sentient being. Sure, it might twitch if you poke it, but not in the sense of a living thinking person.

Most doctors will tell you that sentience (the ability to feel) begins somewhere around the 24th month of life, although some say it may begin earlier than that. As for living, any ultrasound will prove that.

How many of those doctors would pull the plug on a comatose patient that has even half the prognosis for a "normal" life that a typical unaware child in the womb has?

I would posit that most fetuses are highly likely to live normal lives by the time they reach 24 weeks. Even if the baby has been diagnosed a with a medical problem of some kind, is that an acceptable reason to take it's life? I have a moral problem with that, it reeks of some very unpleasant ideas in history such as eugenics and racial purity. As for comatose patients, I would suspect that not many doctors would pull the plug on such a person without a court order, but in any event the 2 situations are not the same IMHO.

Truthfully, if it was me lying comatose in a hospital somewhere I wouldn't want to go on living if I couldn't think or do anything. That's not living, IMHO that's just existing, and I have the legal right to specify the conditions for my continued care if I am unable to make the call myself. But an unborn baby, however old, I really see no ethical reason why their right to life should be infringed. It's hard to see why they have no rights; I think a case can be made for instances where the life of the mother is in question, but should we not as a society tread very carefully on the decision to end a life either before or after birth.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Discussions like this chill me to the bone.

Leftists making it clear that they can't distinguish between innocent unborn lives, and the lives of those who commit atrocities, says so, so much about their politics. They're admitting they have zero moral compass, which explains . . . pretty much everything about leftism.


For the record, there is no contradiction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, given that those who are eligible for the death penalty have proven themselves to be sub-human.

That is being dishonest.

You did suggest darling that pro-Life care more about the unborn and don't care enough about those on Death Row.

There is a fundamental difference between 100% innocent babies In Utero who have committed no wrong or hurt anyone and those who are sitting on Death Row.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Chuz Life

How can you justify the death penalty knowing that innocent human beings end up getting killed?

Are those who wrongly get executed the exception or the rule?

With killing babies In Utero they are the rule and not the exception.

 

[yiostheoy]

Here's a stab in the dark: you own more than one gun and have a really big knife also.

1 long range scoped hunting rifle, 1 intermediate range scoped hi-cap carbine (aka assault rifle -- just not an AR-15), 1 hi-cap riot shotgun, 1 45ACP pistol, 1 combat machete, 1 fixed blade hunting knife, 1 hunting jack knife, 2 fighting jack knife daggers, 1000 rounds ammo, several hi-cap mags, deuce gear, survival backpacking gear, water filter, food storage.

So you were way off on the knives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

....

Gotta love it when proaborts think they have the higher ground when they accuse others of supporting a mass murderer.

Pro-some-lifers shouldn't throw stones from glass houses...

There ain't nothing glass about my house.

You can't be pro-life and still support capital punishment.

1. BULL SHIT.
2. Not everyone who opposes abortion are pro life and believe in that "every life is sacred" bullshit.

For example, being "prolife" doesn't mean one has to give up their right to self defense or the right to defend others. The better term would be "pro innocent life" but most people above the education of a middle scool student should be able to discern that without having to be enlightened further on it.

A consistent pro-life ethic allows for self defense or the defense of others but not for capital punishment - willfully taking another's life. It's not bull shit. It's about a consistent ethic. You call pro-choice "pro-abort" - yet you can be pro-choice and not personally support abortion. It's supporting a woman's choice.

I admire truly pro-life people - they are consistent from conception to tomb because human life matters, not the subjective determination of "innocence". I wish I was at that ethical point, but I'm not.

Correct.

In fact, everyone is pro-life, including those who defend a woman’s right to privacy.

The issue of abortion is separate and apart from government seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

Indeed, citizens are at liberty pursue solutions that will bring about the end of the practice, provided those solutions comport with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Coyote]

Chuz Life

How can you justify the death penalty knowing that innocent human beings end up getting killed?

Are those who wrongly get executed the exception or the rule?

With killing babies In Utero they are the rule and not the exception.

Does it matter if they are the exception? Doesn't that mean there is something wrong with rule if it allows for innocent people being killed?

 

[Coyote]

Discussions like this chill me to the bone.

Leftists making it clear that they can't distinguish between innocent unborn lives, and the lives of those who commit atrocities, says so, so much about their politics. They're admitting they have zero moral compass, which explains . . . pretty much everything about leftism.


For the record, there is no contradiction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, given that those who are eligible for the death penalty have proven themselves to be sub-human.

That is being dishonest.

You did suggest darling that pro-Life care more about the unborn and don't care enough about those on Death Row.

There is a fundamental difference between 100% innocent babies In Utero who have committed no wrong or hurt anyone and those who are sitting on Death Row.

What I said was this: a consistent pro-life ethic cares about the dignity of all life.

The argument given by some is that SOME innocent life is worth more than OTHER innocent life.

So...I'm asking, what is the difference between an innocent unborn child and an innocent man on death row that means his life is worth less?

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz Life

How can you justify the death penalty knowing that innocent human beings end up getting killed?

Are those who wrongly get executed the exception or the rule?

With killing babies In Utero they are the rule and not the exception.

Man. . .

I know I have already used this line once but if it's okay with my wife. . .

 

[task0778]

Discussions like this chill me to the bone.

Leftists making it clear that they can't distinguish between innocent unborn lives, and the lives of those who commit atrocities, says so, so much about their politics. They're admitting they have zero moral compass, which explains . . . pretty much everything about leftism.


For the record, there is no contradiction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, given that those who are eligible for the death penalty have proven themselves to be sub-human.

That is being dishonest.

You did suggest darling that pro-Life care more about the unborn and don't care enough about those on Death Row.

There is a fundamental difference between 100% innocent babies In Utero who have committed no wrong or hurt anyone and those who are sitting on Death Row.

What I said was this: a consistent pro-life ethic cares about the dignity of all life.

The argument given by some is that SOME innocent life is worth more than OTHER innocent life.

So...I'm asking, what is the difference between an innocent unborn child and an innocent man on death row that means his life is worth less?

ALL unborn children are innocent, not a one of them has done anything to warrant a death sentence. A person on death row has been found guilty and sentenced to death by a judge and jury and has gone through the years of appeals; how are we to know he/she is innocent? Those who oppose the death sentence believe that we as a society should not be risking the taking of an innocent person's life even with all the safeguards we have in place these days. But that person has had his/her day in court, whereas the unborn has not, and that's why the 2 situations are different IMHO. FWIW, I used to support the death penalty myself but no longer. I would however stipulate that any person found guilty of a crime worthy of a death sentence should be locked up for life with no eligibility for parole.