Previous -2 - 4
z, rrom conception to full term birth then, when in your opinion do you consider the mother to be carrying a child? What makes you the authority on this matter? Please provide a concise, specific answer, not some generic, subjective one. Isn't the heart formed within days of conception? Isn't a large part of what defines us our DNA, something formed right at conception? Besides, isn't abortion rather violent? Who among us would choose violence to all over peace?
It is always sad to listen to people claim that unborn children are somehow undeserving of human rights simply because of some physical characteristic (i.e. the umbilical cord remains attached). Scientifically, the evidence clearly indicates the mother and child are completely separate human beings. Remember, past historical atrocities have been based upon claimed physical laws (i.e. blacks are not as civilized or as evolved, therefore it's okay to prohibit them from flying fighters in WWII or are allowed to be enslaved prior to the Civil War). You would think that such an advanced and civilized society as ours would recognize just how violent abortion is to both the mother and child, and therefore abhor all forms of it.
Why is it that pro-abortionists cannot seem to grasp the simple concept that a mother and child are two completely different people? What is this objectivity draining magic that the umbilical cord possesses? Has there ever been a case where the mother and child end up with exact matching DNA? It escapes all logic that the simple attachment of a cord somehow changes the two into becoming a single person.
Trust me, conservatives really don't want their hands on your body any more than you want your hands on ours. The question that pro-abortion people fail to answer is does a mother have the right to touch and therefore harm the body of the unborn child and if so, based what? Science? Morals? Is it because the DNA of the mother is the same as that of the child (it's not)? Is it only after gestation as elapsed past six months? What's so magical or special about six months, especially since viability outside the mother's womb is now months earlier? What tolerance do you give to that six month period, plus or minus 2 weeks?
Trust me, conservatives really don't want their hands on your body any more than you want your hands on ours. The question that pro-abortion people fail to answer is does a mother have the right to touch the body of the unborn child and if so, based what? Science? Morals? Is it because the DNA of the mother is the same as that of the child (it's not)? Is it only after gestation as elapsed past six months? What's so magical or special about six months, especially since viability outside the mother's womb is now months earlier? What tolerance do you give to that six month period, plus or minus 2 weeks?
The real issue with abortion is this - is the baby inside the mother's womb a human who possesses human rights, and if so when do we grant them? The claim that mothers can do with their bodies what they want fails to acknowledge the life of the child inside. I ask you this one simple question - can you tell me at what point you would grant human rights onto unborn children? Do you grant the status of human with full human rights only after one week of life outside the mother's womb? One day? One hour? Five minutes? How about five minutes before birth? One day before? One week before? One month before? Three months before? Four months before? Six months before? Please tell me when.
Perhaps MSNBC is the real racist organization?
Previous -2 - 4