Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
You're making a distinction without a difference. An infant is just as much a human being as a fetus.
A baby born two months premature, at 7 months gestation is at the same level of development whether in utero or not. But if it's preborn, it's called a fetus. After delivery it's called an infant.
So how is bcsco lying by calling abortion infanticide?
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”
~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
I love Ronald!
I have Reagan in His Own Hand, where he explains his decision to allow abortion in the case of rape and incest. I didn’t realize he had that position until I read it “in his own hand”.
ampu
“There is no practical difference between the value of a fetus and the value of an infant.”
See how you people obfuscate everything. The practical difference is between a fetus and an infant, is not their “value,” but the fact a fetus is not yet born. A fetus is not an infant. You cannot go into a store and find clothing marked “fetus.” Why is that? You not only defy reason, you want to destroy the English language.
I know you have no interest in the fate of the unborn, and are only interested in putting over your political agenda to control others. Why in the world would you want to put the fate of the unborn in the hands of government—and not God? Whose agent are you anyway?
Hank
“What political agenda would someone being advancing by using abortion as the issue?”
You don’t know? (I do not believe you for a minute.) So you do not want to put the fate of the unborn in the hands of the government? A government that one day can make all abortions illegal and the next day demand anyone with more than two children abort all future pregnancies. You really do not see that abortion must not be a government or political issue, because once your say a government ought to be the agency that decides such things, it will surely decide them against you.
Hank
Since abortion is a species of murder, it remains murder even when the murderer is a victim of another crime herself.
However, victims of rape who commit an abortion have reason to expect clemency. I believe they should be dealt with very leniently.
The point is that a fetus is an innocent living human being. There are indeed distinctions between babies before their birth,-- fetuses,-- and babies that are already born, but neither kind is killable.
To insist on the clinical "fetus" is obfuscation; "baby" simply drives down the salient fact that they are innocent and human, and alive.
Do you get your definitions from Biblical sources?
“You’re making a distinction without a difference. An infant is just as much a human being as a fetus.”
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or how it is germane to the discussion. I certainly would regard an infant a human being, because it is born. All human beings are born. A fetus is not born and is not regarded as a human being either legally or Biblically. Notice that all ages are from the date of birth, not conception.
An infant has been born, and fetus has not. I think even you can understand that.
I am opposed to abortion and am very alarmed by those who claim to be opposed to it but use lies and obfuscation to promote their views, because it has the opposite result and cancels the efforts of those of use who honestly oppose abortion.
Hank
You obviously don't know me very well, and are therefore barking up the wrong tree. I have zero use for libertarianians who hang out on this conservative website. Libertarian and Conservative political philosophies have the same root, but otherwise couldn't be more different.
There is one, and only one reason to oppose abortion: Because it is always EXACTLY the same thing as murder. If I did not feel that way, then I would agree with you, that it's a "personal choice issue." I think that people who feel that way are dumbasses, but at least I can understand their position. The ones I can't understand are people who feel uncomfortable about abortion, but still fight to keep it "Safe, legal & rare." Would you please explain to me, Mrs. Clinton, why abortion ought to be "rare" if it's just a surgical proceedure?
In any case, you misunderstood me. As far as I'm concerned, ALL abortions are murder. They have ZERO to do with the "rights" of the mother. And any more who has an abortion is complicit in that murder. I leave that one up to God to sort out. It's still a sin, even if you say you weren't fully aware of it. My point was this: If we could end the argument, and save millions of lives at the expense of the thousands of unfortunates who were conceived through rape, we ought to do it. I'm about saving lives, not who gets punished and why.
Get this through your tiny libertarian head: Nobody on this thread is or will ever try to impose their will on you. I'm assuming you can't have an abortion. If you could, the right to life still trumps all others.
No, why? Isn’t it obvious by itself?
Hank Kerchief is a hit-’n-run, apparently. Having dinner with my wife, sitting and reading while she watches ‘Dances With The Stars’, I’ve given him enough time to reply.
His post made no sense to me. I don’t know what I supposedly lied about, unless it was acquainting fetuses with infants. Not a very conservative minded viewpoint that.
Anyway, I personally can’t get beyond the idea that for whatever reason, rape, incest, [here’s your chance to name one], a decision for abortion is a decision to prevent the life of one who can’t speak for oneself. I shudder when I think of what women who have been subjected to rape and incest go through. I could never attempt to believe I could understand it. But to compound that travesty with a second - the destruction of a life - just isn’t an answer to me.
Wagglebee, I read what you wrote about women you’ve known, and the trauma they’ve been through considering carrying the baby of a rapist. I can’t tell you I could deal with that. That’s why I understand when you speak of some of them committing suicide. But what of the alternative? By aborting the fetus created, aren’t they guilty in God’s eyes of killing their infant? Does God look any differently on that fetus than on one created by its mother and father?
These are all things we as humans have trouble getting our minds around. Our answers, for what they’re worth, are fraught with human frailty at best. And I certainly can’t claim superior knowledge or wisdom. All I can say is, I vote for life. As troubling as that may be, as difficult as I’m sure it is for some to agree, I still vote for life. That infant had no hand in what created its being. It should not be made a victim of our inadequate wisdom.
I see you’re back. I expect an answer to me regarding your garbled and unintelligible post. Anytime will do...
By legalizing abortion you have put the fate of the baby in the hands of the government and the government’s hands are stained red from the blood of all those babies butchered because it failed to protect them from murderers.
Government is a necessary force in maintaining order and a civilized society. What you are advocating is anarchy.
No form of government is perfect, but a government ruled by law protects the freedom of its citizens, ALL of them. And laws are necessary to rein in the government and yet at the same time allow them the teeth necessary to maintain civil order.
Yes, people obfuscate everything. And so do you. Actually, in God's eyes there is no difference, so it doesn't matter what 'practical' difference there is between men. All life is created by Him. And all life is intended for His honor. Remember the words 'Suffer thy children to come unto me'? Before we can suffer them to His presence, we must suffer to insure they are born as His gift to us.
Why in the world would you want to put the fate of the unborn in the hands of government—and not God? Whose agent are you anyway?
That's exactly what we're saying. That fetus, that infant, is God's design. Can you rightly tell me that fetus created by a rapist will not be as precious in God's eyes as a child than one born of natural, loving parents? Can you? Who are you to speak for God? Who are you to say nay when He has already allowed this to happen?
This is our imperfect world; not God's. God gave us our freedom and what we're discussing is a result of our inability to cope adequately. If you honestly believe God is judging in these births, you are so wrong. It is we who are judging, you one of the foremost judges by saying what you do. I feel sorry for you. To bring God into this as you have, you are defiling His name.
What I don’t know is what you’re accusing me of based on my stance on abortion.
Murder is wrong, period. Recognizing that is not a political agenda and it’s not a political agenda to expect the government to deal with murderers.
Hank Kerchief’s is a circular argument. He argues that to outlaw abortion is to put control in government, yet the legalizing of abortion, whether with, or without, controls does the same thing. He can’t have it both ways from a government intrusion stance.
Yet our point is beyond government intervention. It’s the sanctity of life. Period. And yet, if there is to be government intrusion, it is in the belief that it would be better if government intruded in favor of life, not in favor of deciding what life is worthwhile, and what life isn’t. It’s that simple.
You people?
We obfuscate nothing. YOU'RE the one doing that. It's simple. We think that a human being is a human being no matter what stage of development, unlike you who determines humanity by a trip through the birth canal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.