Planned Parenthood targeted by ProLife groups loses Komen Foundation funding

apple0154 said:
Nobody is killing children. There is no such thing as an unborn child any more that there is an undead corpse. A corpse means there has been a death and child means there has been a birth.
Click to expand...

Not so. Indeed, most states recognize the unborn as a child so long as it is wanted. This is proven through laws that protect it from a mothers drug use, as well as prosecute persons for it being killed as the result of a criminal act. It is only if it is aborted that people like you claim it is not a child.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Not so. Indeed, most states recognize the unborn as a child so long as it is wanted. This is proven through laws that protect it from a mothers drug use, as well as prosecute persons for it being killed as the result of a criminal act. It is only if it is aborted that people like you claim it is not a child.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the example. It's "a child so long as it is wanted".

Let's be up front here. People have always considered their children possessions. From offering daughters as gifts/money to families having a large number of children to work the farms or defend the homestead the concern was never for the child, per se. I think that should be obvious when we see parents prancing around telling anyone who will listen about their "child's" Armed Forces service. Who the hell would encourage, let alone celebrate, having their "child" in harm's way when they know, without a doubt, the current wars are bogus?

Take a person who has an abortion. A few years later they decide to have a child and the fetus is killed during an illegal act by someone else. I'm willing to bet the farm (if I had one :) ) that person would give a victim statement pertaining to the loss of a child. Would they be making the statement because of the child or because of their loss? It would be because of their loss of a possession, not because of the loss of life of a "child". That's why the law is the way it is.
 
apple0154 said:
Thanks for the example. It's "a child so long as it is wanted".

Let's be up front here. People have always considered their children possessions. From offering daughters as gifts/money to families having a large number of children to work the farms or defend the homestead the concern was never for the child, per se. I think that should be obvious when we see parents prancing around telling anyone who will listen about their "child's" Armed Forces service. Who the hell would encourage, let alone celebrate, having their "child" in harm's way when they know, without a doubt, the current wars are bogus?

Take a person who has an abortion. A few years later they decide to have a child and the fetus is killed during an illegal act by someone else. I'm willing to bet the farm (if I had one :) ) that person would give a victim statement pertaining to the loss of a child. Would they be making the statement because of the child or because of their loss? It would be because of their loss of a possession, not because of the loss of life of a "child". That's why the law is the way it is.
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect. Let's give an example. A person who kills a pregnant woman, even in early stages, has committed a double murder in the state of California. And no, the law isn't based on "want". If she had an appointment to abort the child the next day, it would still be a double murder.

You seem to believe that responsibility towards raising a child is the same thing as "ownership", I believe that this gives us insight into Apple, but not a very good picture of what people as a whole actually think or feel. Apple thinks that kids are possessions, not responsibilities therefore he thinks that those laws are based on what Apple thinks because he has a limited imagination and associates all others thoughts to how he would think in the same position. Unfortunately the laws are written in a way that clearly indicates that nobody was thinking that way.
 
apple0154 said:
Thanks for the example. It's "a child so long as it is wanted".

Let's be up front here. People have always considered their children possessions. From offering daughters as gifts/money to families having a large number of children to work the farms or defend the homestead the concern was never for the child, per se. I think that should be obvious when we see parents prancing around telling anyone who will listen about their "child's" Armed Forces service. Who the hell would encourage, let alone celebrate, having their "child" in harm's way when they know, without a doubt, the current wars are bogus?

Take a person who has an abortion. A few years later they decide to have a child and the fetus is killed during an illegal act by someone else. I'm willing to bet the farm (if I had one :) ) that person would give a victim statement pertaining to the loss of a child. Would they be making the statement because of the child or because of their loss? It would be because of their loss of a possession, not because of the loss of life of a "child". That's why the law is the way it is.
Click to expand...

Yeah- see the ridiculous inconsistency? Proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the abortion issue has never been about privacy, but about the right to decide if a baby is wanted or not. Attempts to make it not human; or not a child, are really just semantics to allow the conscience to kill another human being at will. Those same kind of semantics that allowed people to make slaves of people, because they were black- not quite fully human.
 
Damocles said:
You would be incorrect. Let's give an example. A person who kills a pregnant woman, even in early stages, has committed a double murder in the state of California. And no, the law isn't based on "want". If she had an appointment to abort the child the next day, it would still be a double murder.

You seem to believe that responsibility towards raising a child is the same thing as "ownership", I believe that this gives us insight into Apple, but not a very good picture of what people as a whole actually think or feel. Apple thinks that kids are possessions, not responsibilities therefore he thinks that those laws are based on what Apple thinks because he has a limited imagination and associates all others thoughts to how he would think in the same position. Unfortunately the laws are written in a way that clearly indicates that nobody was thinking that way.
Click to expand...

Nobody is thinking this way? One state out of 50?

Does it make any sense at all that abortion is legal but the terminating of a pregnancy by someone other than the mother is murder? Are you unable to see the political absurdity here? The only reason such an absurd law is on the books is due to a specific crime that was committed. The anti-abortionists wait, like vultures, for a hideous crime to grab the public's emotions and then push their agenda.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yeah- see the ridiculous inconsistency? Proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the abortion issue has never been about privacy, but about the right to decide if a baby is wanted or not. Attempts to make it not human; or not a child, are really just semantics to allow the conscience to kill another human being at will. Those same kind of semantics that allowed people to make slaves of people, because they were black- not quite fully human.
Click to expand...

It is about privacy and rights as much as a parent has the right to bring up their child as they see fit. Pregnancy is a process. That's why it takes 9 months. Responsible people are not going to bring a child into the world if they can't or won't look after it properly.

We would never give a child a pet if we knew the child would not look after it properly yet anti-abortionists insist on people who will not look after a child properly to bear one. They know there is a very real possibility such a person will fight to keep said child for a number of reasons. We know the child will go through hell between an incompetent parent and Social Services. We know there is a very real possibility the child will go from foster home to foster home being treated as little more than a vagabond.

But if the ideal situation does arise and the parent miraculously changes into a loving mother forsaking her partying friends and putting her career aspirations on hold we know she and her child will struggle through poverty while the rest of society says it's not their responsibility. As she stays home, weekend after weekend, cutting out coupons and using food stamps we'll expect her to keep smiling or, at the very least, keep a stiff upper lip. Then we'll watch the child grow up living on the poor side of town riddled with gangs and drugs and violence and when he eventually drops out of school and is standing in a court room accused of theft, or worse, we'll look at each other and say, "What is wrong with those people?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top