We exist, FYI. Some of us are even pro-life.

ND HB 1572 FTW!!!

Views: 1549

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It IS right-vs-life. I'm not defending dead fetuses.
There's a difference between the passive act of not donating a kidney and the active act of sucking out the fetus's brains.
A fetus has the same rights as a human being BECAUSE IT IS A HUMAN BEING!
Whether or not some embryos die is not relevant.
Point of order. Zygotes, embryos and early stage fetuses do not have brains to suck.
This seems to have become a popular thread, I guess I'll throw in my two cents because I'm bored.

In my opinion a fetus that has never made a conscious decision, never opened it's eyes, and has yet to log memories and experiences is no more a person then the union by which it was conceived. A fetus is a potential life, just as the act of sex is a potential life. If you have strong feelings against abortion, then you should also have strong feelings against capable women who choose not to bare children. Think of all the potential lives that have been terminated by women who chose not to bare children, if your mother was one of those appalling non child baring women you'd have been killed before you ever existed.
A fetus is alive, no doubt about it.

Infants make no conscious decisions, and do you remember being an infant?
No, I give them equal weight. I am just pointing out how bad of a deciding factor self-awareness is.
The earliest I can remember was when I was 6 months ol'. I have no physical proof of this. Just an event & my mother tellin' me when it took place. I remember her turnin' very pale when I explained the whole thing to her. That would have put me 'round 26 - 29 weeks ol'.
A cornstalk is alive, no doubt about it.

I would argue that infants do make conscious decisions, and that they do have memories. I'd say there is a vast difference between the cognitivity and consciousness of a born and unborn child, especially when referring to the unborn child during the stages at which abortions are performed.
Here is the thing for me:

1)You may well believe that cases of incest may not end up in deformity, but that really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It doesn't take into consideration the after effects of the person carrying said child, nor the child that would be born.

2) If your argument is that there are thousands of folks out there that would love to adopt, then here is my answer: So WHAT?!?! I am not an incubator. I will not allow my uterus to be relegated to that status either. There is no shortage of children who need homes. Perhaps those that would want me to carry a child under duress should think of their stance, and why it is they feel they are entitled to a baby on the back of someone who has no interest in carrying a pregnancy to term.

You are going to have to forgive me here, but here goes.
I get so FUCKING tired of reading posts where a person feels that their right to have a baby superceeds my right not to carry one. Whether they want to believe it or not, there are inherent risks with pregnancy, and those risks can only be assumed by the person carrying the fetus. To somehow believe that you are so important, and that your want of a baby is so important that you would you try to legally enforce that a woman be enslaved to her body for your selfish needs is disgusting.
There is no lack of children in the US who need loving homes. Most of these children happen to be older, mostly over the age of 10. Where is the outrage over already born and potentiated children who are in the foster care system? What is the need to save unwanted embryos while leaving born children without homes or parents?
And further, as far as the incest thing goes...
Yes, let's force a child (because most cases of incest do happen to children) to carry another child to term. After all, it is only the sweet precious baby we are worried about. Not the kid that was raped, and will have to endure a pregnancy at the age of 9-17. A pregnancy which will have higher risks to the CHILD carrying the pregnancy. Not to mention the social stigma attached to a) being an incest victim and b) being pregnant at a young age. By all means, a child should be forced to carry a pregnancy to suit someone else's moral and ethical compass, no matter the physical, social, and/or emotional damage it would cause her.

Because everyone knows one child's right to be free from all social stigma outweighs a grandchild's right to not have their limbs fatally ripped off.

As far as being "forced to follow another's ethical compass", riddle me this: do you oppose anti-rape laws?
Because everyone knows one child's right to be free from all social stigma outweighs a cornstalks right to not have their husks fatally ripped off.

As far as being "forced to follow another's ethical compass", riddle me this: do you oppose anti-genocide laws?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service