So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
The unborn have no rights and are not human beings
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
I'm surprised you waited 2 years to post this simplistic question here in DP's abortion forum. Good luck with the backlash.
WOW!!!!!!!!
This is...
This is just...
Backlash against what? Protecting human rights? Stating the unadulterated truth? Let me ask you...
Do you believe that your right to "whatever" outweighs another human beings actual right to live?
Backlash against what? Protecting human rights? Stating the unadulterated truth? Let me ask you...
Do you believe that your right to "whatever" outweighs another human beings actual right to live?
The mother's life is the first consideration compared to the unborn's life.
You're questioning the wrong guy here. If you check out the threads in the abortion forum here, you'll find I'm not the guy you have issues with.
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
Interesting... So you believe that you have the right to kill another human being if you view YOUR LIFE as more important?
First, prove that the unborn are innocent.
Easy enough.
innocent - adj. - Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless
Which part of this definition does not describe an unborn human being?
P.S: Unless you are interested in getting embarrassed, you really should back away from this debate.
The unborn are not human being yet. The mother's life is ENTIRELY more important than the unborn. The unborn is a secondary consideration compared to the mother.
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
Do you mean "crime or offense" legally, as they pertain to sin, or both?
This is not rocket science. Innocent is a legal term. It means a human being who has not committed an illegal crime or offense.
Like I told you before, you really should back out of this debate because quite clearly you are unprepared.
I've been a Foster dad of medically-fragile children since 1999. My last one - who was also one of my first, and who has aged out of the 'system' and I'm now "just" his caregiver instead of being his Foster dad - is sitting about six feet away from me as I type this. As a result of his fetal drug syndrome, he's got a trach, a g-tube, cleft palate, rods in his back, seizure disorders, and - while he understands our communications to him - he cannot communicate to us. He can't tell us where it hurts. I sat down with a pen and paper in 2005 to figure out how much in taxpayer dollars it costs every year to care for him. At the time, it was a quarter million dollars per year (very little of which went to us - it was more for meds, 24/7 nurses, and medical care). He was only one of several that we've cared for over the past seventeen years.
He will never - repeat, never - be able to care for himself. He's likely to outlive me...and the cost of his annual care will always be footed by the taxpayers.
Sure, we love him...but it's getting close to time for us to retire - we are getting a bit too old to care for him, so he'll have to go to someone else. That's the nature of the caregiving system. And we've seen enough to know to NOT blame the mother - there's no way to know what she was going through at the time, and we can see how heartbreaking it must have been for her...and how little support from the state that a biological mother gets for taking care of a medically-fragile child. That's why it falls on people like my wife and myself.
So you have to ask yourself, when there are many kids like this born every year who will NEVER be able to care for themselves, who will ALWAYS be a great burden not only on the family and on the taxpayer, but also on the school system (they all go to public schools, since private schools don't have the wherewithal for such kids...and this is one of the reasons private schools spend less per student - because they don't have to teach the ones who are really expensive)...at what point does your personal ethical believe in the sanctity of the unborn become too impractical for the real world?
Legal then. Which country's laws are we talking about here?
The United States. And still you continue to avoid the question...
Again, do you right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?
It is such a SIMPLE question but most pro-choicers find it IMPOSSIBLE to answer.
Because the question is stupid and moronic to begin with.The United States. And still you continue to avoid the question...
Again, do you right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?
It is such a SIMPLE question but most pro-choicers find it IMPOSSIBLE to answer.
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?