Poll to abort or not, causes heavy debate .....

Status
Not open for further replies.
The topic is abortion. Not JUST the poll. Sorry Chukpike. Wrong again.

Then if the topic is abortion admin should have closed the topic? As the topic is already available on the forum?

Also the TITLE of the topic usually states the Topic. This TITLE is:

Poll to abort or not, causes heavy debut.....

So who's wrong?

I will leave it alone here, as I have stated my opinon of the poll.
 
And there lies the crux of the issue. Since no one has been able to prove when an unborn child is "alive" this issue will never be resolved.
Pro Life feels it is at conception.
Pro Chice feels it is at birth.
I think we can agree that we will never agree about this and return to the subject at hand.
I personally feel that this poll these parents are conducting is pretty cold blooded. Not sure I would be too psyched if these folks were my parents.
Hokie, that's not necessarily true. Pro-choice people have a variety of times when a developing fetus can become a "child." I, for one, do not believe it is so far along as birth. An unborn baby has a heart beat, brain function, etc. prior to birth. I feel that when these things are present, then it has become a child, and if the parents have any reservations at all about whether or not they want to have/raise the child, then they should have decided what to do LONG before those signs present themselves.

Ted makes a good point. Without a pulse or brain function, isn't a person considered dead?

Then if the topic is abortion admin should have closed the topic? As the topic is already available on the forum?

Also the TITLE of the topic usually states the Topic. This TITLE is:

Poll to abort or not, causes heavy debut.....

So who's wrong?

I will leave it alone here, as I have stated my opinon of the poll.
Curiouser and curiouser. I could have sworn the title of the thread was "Poll to abort or not, causes heavy debate ....."

Not debut. So who's wrong? AGAIN.

The poll is ABOUT abortion. You cannot talk about the poll without discussing the topic of the poll. And once again, Chukpike has semi-successfully de-railed YET ANOTHER thread.

By the way, Chuk, it is not wise to question a moderator's judgement in the open forum. If you feel the thread should be closed, I suggest you report it.
 
B U S H W A H !

You are trying to eat your cake and have it too and NOW you would have us believe you were baiting the forum. I don't believe your 'bait' comment.

Pro-lifers have used this excuse for years, to excuse their stance on abortion-v-death penalty or the taking of an adult's life (re: shooting the parents).

Why don't you just own up to the fact that you are trying to have it both ways as I alluded to.

BTW - Abortion IS LEGAL - MURDER IS NOT.

Chief, The issue here is the ending of a life. I will try to explain my position.
The unborn child has not interacted with society and therefore cannot have broken any laws. The murderer has interacted with society and HAS broken the law by killing someone (i.e. made a conscious choice to take the life of another). Society has deemed that breaking of this particular law will invoke the death penalty. So taking of the murderers life is, by societies rules, acceptable and necessary to good order. The child, for all intents and purposes, is innocent of any crime against society.
My problem is that society has said that it is ok for a mother to have an abortion. In my mind this is the same as the murderer, yet the mother will suffer no penalty from society. That is the double standard.

In a nutshell Chief, the murderer has made a choice, the child has not.
 
Chief, The issue here is the ending of a life. I will try to explain my position.
The unborn child has not interacted with society and therefore cannot have broken any laws. The murderer has interacted with society and HAS broken the law by killing someone (i.e. made a conscious choice to take the life of another). Society has deemed that breaking of this particular law will invoke the death penalty. So taking of the murderers life is, by societies rules, acceptable and necessary to good order. The child, for all intents and purposes, is innocent of any crime against society.
My problem is that society has said that it is ok for a mother to have an abortion. In my mind this is the same as the murderer, yet the mother will suffer no penalty from society. That is the double standard.

In a nutshell Chief, the murderer has made a choice, the child has not.
Hokie, how would you respond to Ted's observation? How can one kill what is not alive? If a medical doctor would pronounce such a person dead, how can you justify calling it alive, not bearing the same credentials? If a developing embryo does not have a heartbeat, pulse, or any detectable brain function, how can you call it a child?
 
Pfff..... unborn child. What is your definition of a "child"? Remember that it takes several weeks before it has a heart, brain and nervous system. So if you are quick and the "child" has no heartbeat, brain function and can't feel, what is the worry. Most medics would call a grown up in these conditions "a dead person". You can't kill what is still/already dead!

Hokie, how would you respond to Ted's observation? How can one kill what is not alive? If a medical doctor would pronounce such a person dead, how can you justify calling it alive, not bearing the same credentials? If a developing embryo does not have a heartbeat, pulse, or any detectable brain function, how can you call it a child?

There is no response to such an incredibly inaccurate statement.

From the moment of conception a human embryo is a living, growing organism. Doctors, biologists, pro-choice and pro-life advocates will agree with this.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates disagree with when the embryo becomes a human being. So when someone declares "You can't kill what is still/already dead!" there is nothing to say. A person making such a ludicrous statement has no concept of what life is.

If a pro-choice advocate wants to ignore basic science to ease their conscience that is their problem.
 
Last edited:
There is no response to such an incredibly inaccurate statement.

From the moment of conception a human embryo is a living, growing organism. Doctors, biologists, pro-choice and pro-life advocates will agree with this.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates disagree with when the embryo becomes a human being. So when someone declares "You can't kill what is still/already dead!" there is nothing to say. A person making such a ludicrous statement has no concept of what life is.

If a pro-choice advocate wants to ignore basic science to ease their conscience that is their problem.
Organism. Not human being. You clearly have not read my post correctly, once again.

Technically, the "person" is not alive because a "person" must have a pulse and some sort of measurable brain function.

So, at the risk of sounding overly cliche, this is an A, B conversation, so C your way out of it, Chukpike. If I want %&^$ out of you, I'll squeeze your head.
 
Organism. Not human being. You clearly have not read my post correctly, once again.

Technically, the "person" is not alive because a "person" must have a pulse and some sort of measurable brain function.

So, at the risk of sounding overly cliche, this is an A, B conversation, so C your way out of it, Chukpike. If I want %&^$ out of you, I'll squeeze your head.
"Technically, the "person" is not alive because a "person" must have a pulse and some sort of measurable brain function." quote Rob Henderson

Why? You don't.:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top