Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections


No, you just sidestepped what I said again.

It is not charity to give birth immediately vs getting an abortion immediately. That is not self-evident.


None of what you’ve posted makes ANY sense IF you acknowledge one, biological truth…that a baby is a human being from the instant of conception and deserving of protection by the law.


Actually, you DO have the right to kill someone who has hurt you AND PUT YOU IN FEAR FOR YOUR SAFETY OR LIFE.


Only if you think your own life is in jeopardy.

People have been put in jail for killing someone who picked a fight with them.

Why? Because even though the other person harmed them, it wasn’t convincing that they were in a position to kill.

Equally, if a person attacks you, and you succesfully immobilize them, you can’t “finish them off”. For the same reason.


I never thought I’d ever agree with CSBrown about anything, but he’s right about this…with the understanding that an unborn baby BECOMES a person at the moment of conception. Left alone, it will eventually emerge as a breathing human being. It will NOT emerge as a flatworm, or a puppy, or a flower. It will ONLY emerge from the womb as a HUMAN child…period.


The only thing that’s a “potential” human life is an unfertilized human egg and most women expel them monthly for a third of their lives.


Can’t I get a “like”? I mean, I cherish the likes I get here, especially from my Conservitive friends :slight_smile:


I would have done so IF you’d acknowledged that a baby is human FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION instead of that nonsense about them suddenly and miraculously becoming human only when they are capable of surviving outside of the womb.


Author David Weber has envisioned a future society in which, upon discovering a pregnancy, people are able to transfer the baby into a closely monitored artificial womb until the instant of birth. I think we’re headed in that direction…maybe faster than most of us realize…which will knock into a cocked hat the whole concept of and rationale for abortion.


Dam :weary:

I guess that depends on how you define “human”. When the egg and sperm share genetic information and begin to divide. I don’t believe that is “human”. I think if left undisturbed it will become human, hence my statement with respect to “potential human”.

We can agree to disagree on this point. Personally, for me, I oppose it, but I’ve stated my thoughts as it applies to how I think society should agree to legislate the issue.


At 20 weeks, the baby is not “potential life”. They have their own heart, nerves, lungs, brain, dreams, even blood. They are alive, they have human capacities and features, thus, they are a life. There’s no other honest way to evaluate them.


Here you go:

The government may only force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, her life, and her interests if women aren’t self-owners. If women aren’t self-owners, then neither is a fetus. If a fetus isn’t a self-owner, then it has no right to life. Hence, the pro-life position undermines itself.


Wrong, at 20 weeks, she can deliver immediately.

It’s not about “remaining pregnant”, it’s just not killing.

How “not killing” while still expelling the baby way before natural birth is “charity” is not self-evident.


Do you personally believe that the state does not have the right to force a woman to remain pregnant before 20 weeks?


The flaw in your concept is that you consider the baby “non-human” at 19 weeks and 6 days gestation while it has ALL the characteristics that you claim for it the next day.


Basically, yes.

We’ll move earlier than 20 weeks, once the technology is in place to reliably allow for safe delivery. Until then, 20 weeks is the cutoff.


Ok, then you’re opposed to state-enforced pregnancy, presumably for similar reasons that I’ve already stated.

So at 20 weeks, you’re fine with the state coming in and saying the woman has two options: either undergo a state mandated operation to take the baby out of her, or remain pregnant on threat of state violence if she aborts?


I fully acknoweldge that.

My point is that the baby gathers these traits at some point between week 1 and week 20, and by week 20, we know for certain that the baby has them.

Which means by week 20 there can be no excuse. The baby has those traits & can be delivered.

The bare minimum duty of respecting life is in play.


So let’s acknowledge that the ONLY measure of “humanness” is the instant of conception, and if we REALLY value innocent human life, there simply IS NO POINT at which it’s fine and dandy to destroy it. Certainly not for “convenience” sake.


Which is more invasive than Abortion… how?

The problem with your position, is that Pregnancy isn’t more dangerous, and that the State does already compel action in terms of self-defense.

You have a bare minimum duty to respect another’s life, even when they are in the middle of harming you.

Why? Because while their actions may infringe upon some of your rights, your killing them takes away all of theirs. The claims are thus not equal. If there’s a bare minimum action that will get your grievance resolved, and keep you from harming the other to finality, the weighing of duties commands that you pursue it.

You still have self ownership, no less than someone owns their person after someone else hits them. You just can’t kill without an equal claim.