Thread: Unborn Only Have Value IF

Cause there us a war on the unborn.......Have to keep the population of the undesirables down.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It donned on me the other day that Unborn Only Have Value IF Valued By Mother and wanted to ask why this is acceptable.

Without delving into all the facts, many jurisdictions will charge a criminal with 2 murders if they kill a woman who is pregnant but only with 1 murder if the woman had an abortion the day before. In other words, the double standard is that if the mother kills the baby (presumably wanted by the father) it is not considered murder BUT if it is killed by a criminal it is considered murder. Can someone explain why this is acceptable?

It really makes no logical sense. Bear in mind though, the people who argue in favor of abortion are the same people who think teaching kids about sex will reduce pregnancy but teaching them about firearms will increase violence. Logic and consistency really are not part of the equation.

The other thing I've noticed in my life is the women who are most vocal about abortions are women who, shall we say, really don't have to worry about ever getting one.

Personally, I find the idea of abortion to be beyond reprehensible except when the mother's life is at direct risk and even then it should be her choice - not an automatic abortion. Abortion is not about choice - it is about legalizing murder to make up for the fact that your dumb ass didn't think BEFORE riding the baloney pony...The time to decide you don't want a child is before you fuck - not after. No, sorry, I don't fall for any of the bullshit reasoning that no birth control is 100% effective (not true - abstinence is 100% effective and always has been) or how a rape victim should not suffer. Rape victims are a totally different scenario and rape-induced pregnancies are so rare that basing public policy on them is the height of stupidity.

My personal views aside, I accept that Roe v. Wade is still in effect as case law and for the foreseeable future abortions will continue to be permissible in the United States. I do not however, believe public funding should EVER support them. If it is supposed to be a personal choice then it must remain totally a personal choice. If the woman cannot afford it, it isn't a choice available to her.

Just because the choice or possibility for something exists does not mean you have a right to it regardless of cost. For proof of this consider the 2nd Amendment. I absolutely have a right to be armed, but the idea that public funding should provide me with my choice of weapons regardless of my ability to afford them is ludicrous.

Perhaps because the zygote is really physically part of the mother (just like her appendix, kidneys, etc) until some point when it actually can sustain its basic functions (heartbeat and breathing) away from the mother?

I realize a kidney or an appendix can't eventually become a new human (although with cloning technology that's not very farfetched), but in 100% of cases if the mother dies the zygote/fetus dies, so there is a rational argument that a zygote/fetus isn't really a separate individual from the mother.

For example, in the case of conjoined twins where one is so buried in the other that basic cosmetic surgery can remove an extra ear or mouth or whatever, isn't that a violation of the inferior twin's basic human rights?

Does the twin sticking out of the chest have rights to exist if the other twin wants to have those legs removed?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Perhaps because the zygote is really physically part of the mother (just like her appendix, kidneys, etc) until some point when it actually can sustain its basic functions (heartbeat and breathing) away from the mother?

I realize a kidney or an appendix can't eventually become a new human (although with cloning technology that's not very farfetched), but in 100% of cases if the mother dies the zygote/fetus dies, so there is a rational argument that a zygote/fetus isn't really a separate individual from the mother.

For example, in the case of conjoined twins where one is so buried in the other that basic cosmetic surgery can remove an extra ear or mouth or whatever, isn't that a violation of the inferior twin's basic human rights?

Does the twin sticking out of the chest have rights to exist if the other twin wants to have those legs removed?

So your saying that child needs to die cause of his deformity???????Thats really tolerant of you.

Rights only pertain to rational choice makers - not to legs or other non-mind body parts.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Perhaps because the zygote is really physically part of the mother (just like her appendix, kidneys, etc) until some point when it actually can sustain its basic functions (heartbeat and breathing) away from the mother?

Perhaps because WHAT?

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

It really makes no logical sense. Bear in mind though, the people who argue in favor of abortion are the same people who think teaching kids about sex will reduce pregnancy but teaching them about firearms will increase violence. Logic and consistency really are not part of the equation...

It is consistent if you understand the liberal mindset. You understand that with freedom comes responsibility. Liberals want freedom from responsibility.

So they want children to have irresponsible sex, and when the inevitable happens, they don't want anyone to have the responsibility to raise the child. They don't want the responsibilities that come with gun ownership, and don't see how anyone could possibly be responsible to own one.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

So your saying that child needs to die cause of his deformity???????Thats really tolerant of you.

What?!

I'm saying, the legs sticking out of that boy's chest are another person. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up "conjoined twins".

If the twin with the head and arms wants to have surgery to remove the legs sticking out of his chest (which is technically another person .. a twin brother), should he be allowed to make that decision which in effect will KILL his twin?

If you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about ... that isn't a picture of a boy with a deformity. That is a picture of TWO boys.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Perhaps because WHAT?

The title is "Unborn only have value IF" and your original post ponders 'why/how' can that possibly be logical.

I'm answering "perhaps this is why"

This abortion issue is simple for me to understand and form an opinion on. Either human life has great value, or it has no value. We as a society have chosen that human life is insignificant, and of no value whatsoever. We then give the female the legal right to pay someone to murder her fetus, or child. We give it to her under this illogical idea that the baby is not a separate being from her own body, has no life of its own, although it is dependent upon the mothers body until birth.

We grant the woman the right to take another human life, because it is her body, while we restrict the right of a person to abuse just their own body with drugs. It is absolute lunacy. So what's new in this society that ideally is driven by logic and reason? Logic and reason is only a luxury, to be used when some one is to reap personal benefits. It does not drive our lives, our institutions and we may as well be dancing around campfires speaking to the spirits of the fire.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It donned on me the other day that Unborn Only Have Value IF Valued By Mother and wanted to ask why this is acceptable.

Without delving into all the facts, many jurisdictions will charge a criminal with 2 murders if they kill a woman who is pregnant but only with 1 murder if the woman had an abortion the day before. In other words, the double standard is that if the mother kills the baby (presumably wanted by the father) it is not considered murder BUT if it is killed by a criminal it is considered murder. Can someone explain why this is acceptable?

I consider the unborn to be of value and a murder charge appropriate ... carrying the child displays the mothers value of the child. My value of the unborn child should not outweigh the mothers control over her own body ... in my opinion. Not controlling another persons body in society ... is a choice to be made based upon harm to society vs life, liberty, property.

Originally Posted by michael h

I consider the unborn to be of value and a murder charge appropriate ... carrying the child displays the mothers value of the child. My value of the unborn child should not outweigh the mothers control over her own body ... in my opinion. Not controlling another persons body in society ... is a choice to be made based upon harm to society vs life, liberty, property.

I think we think about this in an illogical manner, driven by selfishness, in large part. Being selfish, self centered, being only concerned with our own pursuit of pleasure corrupts logic. But that is common, and no one questions it to any great degree. The power of self centered thinking is extremely powerful in the lives of men and women.

If a separate human existence, an innocent existence, becomes less important than a woman wishes, an invented right that her own wishes, her body supercedes another human life, this is a evil way to view it. Human life by the act is proved worthless, no matter how fancy one tries to spin it.

Yet in some cases I think we have to hold our noses and allow certain abortions in order to save a mothers life. Better to lose one life, instead of two, in this case. Like having two kids drowning one it is only possible to save one. You are forced into it, and that is horrible, but acceptable in a sane society.

Modern birth control should make abortions practically non existent. It has the power to do so.

To all you abortion advocates: if you don't have a moral objection to late term and partial birth abortions, then how can you have a moral objection to after-birth abortions, or the aborting of folks on life support?