Civilized Man May Soon Revile Abortion as it Does Slavery

[Tanis143]

I have 2 kids with a chromosome disorder. One will likely live with us forever and the other will be able to hold a job and provide for himself. Both of them are loving caring children. How can anyone say that killing them as an infant is a benefit to them. If you asked either of them if they wanted to die the answer would be no. Where do draw the line? Either life is precious and worth protecting or it isn’t. What if you as an adult we’re in an accident and lost both legs. Should society determine whether your life is worth the effort and burden? What if you couldn’t work and had to be supported by the tax payers? Surely then you want to be murdered.

You just brought up the point I was looking for (and what I think Ethan was trying to make). Yes, there is a very steep slippery slope in this thought process. I would counter that with the argument that when a human is no longer or was never able to have a conscious thought would we still consider them human beings? We define ourselves as different from animals by our ability to have rational thought (though many segments in society challenges that ability). So if a person is no longer capable of rational thought, are they still human?

*And again, I'm not stating this because I believe in this argument, I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole we can go. I had this discussion once with another person and I wanted to see how others would counter his ideas*

 

[JD8]

Can't believe Vox published that......

 

[Ethan N]

You just brought up the point I was looking for (and what I think Ethan was trying to make).

I thought I was pretty successful in making the point. Infants have rights. What else needs to be said? That should be enough for anyone who agrees that a person has a right to live, right? Not saying even more persuasive arguments can’t be made (they clearly can), but it seems to me if someone needs a stronger argument than the right to life before they’re convinced, they don’t value human life very much.

I hope I’m not reading too much into the word “trying” here.

 

[dennishoddy]

Can't believe Vox published that......
]

I think the RNC hacked Vox’s account.

 

[Tanis143]

I thought I was pretty successful in making the point. Infants have rights. What else needs to be said? That should be enough for anyone who agrees that a person has a right to live, right? Not saying even more persuasive arguments can’t be made (they clearly can), but it seems to me if someone needs a stronger argument than the right to life before they’re convinced, they don’t value human life very much.

I hope I’m not reading too much into the word “trying” here.

No, I was not saying you were trying and failing, but I guess I misread and/or misunderstood your point (I was looking for the trees and missed the forest). Lets take this a step sideways though. What gives us the right to life? Does that right extend to animals that have lesser brain function, say cows, chickens, etc? Now lets apply that to humans who have little to no brain function. Why do we, as humans get a pass while animals are culled on a daily basis for overpopulation, food, etc?

 

[Aries]

My response would be that an animal has the brain function that it has, and it will never develop higher intellectual abilities. A fetus, if just given reasonable care and a chance to live will continue to grow and develop until they are normal human beings... unless you kill them. It's just a matter of what point of development it has reached, but under normal conditions it will be as human as you and I.

Animals will never do that, no matter how long they live.

 

[GlockPride]

Not my thoughts, but Neil Boortz’s (paraphrased): remember, about 90+% of the babies that are aborted are of Democrats that would grow up to be Democrat voters.


I think it’s sick and disgusting and NOT a woman’s choice, but murder. It is atrocious and those that commit it, support it and participate will be called upon in he judgement to answer for their sins.

 

[Annie]

I don't think the government ought to be involved in this decision. Whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, or carry it to term, ought to be between a woman, her man and/or any medical professionals they wish to involve. It is NOBODY ELSE'S business.

 

[Glock 40]

If a man impregnates a woman he cant make her have an abortion. If she choses to have the child. He is on the hook for 18 years. At the same time she can kill his child in the womb and he has no rights. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Ethan N]

I don't think the government ought to be involved in this decision. Whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, or carry it to term, ought to be between a woman, her man and/or any medical professionals they wish to involve. It is NOBODY ELSE'S business.

It is without any doubt that government’s most important function is to defend a person’s right to live when threatened by the actions of another. If anything is somebody’s business, it’s this.