Where did she say she was proud of killing babies? She said she was proud of the fact she is pro choice. She didn't mention anything about killing babies.
really? to end the life of the child in the womb is called "killing" please spare me the silly word games
No one supports killing babies and this is nothing but inflammatory rhetoric. This is an issue of law and a fetus is not a baby. If a person believes that a fetus is a human life (i.e. person) then they need to address that under the Constitution. Is there really an argument against this? It is the correct way to address the issue and it's the only legal means for addressing the issue. A fetus is not a "person" under the US Constitution. That has already been determined in Roe v Wade and unless the US Constitution is changed that is going to continue to be the legal position of our government. For those that want to establish the personhood of a fetus they need to focus on a Constitutional Amendment that imparts personhood to a fetus. All other measures are unconstitutional. Only a change in the US Constitution to establish the legal foundation of personhoold is valid.
really let's review one law as an example and see if you perhaps make common sense and even moral decisions most highways have a speed limit of 70mph if they are covered in snow and ice or a downpour began, do you continue to try and drive at 70, or 60 or 50 or do you slow for your safety as well as safety of others? Just because the law says it's OK to kill babies in the womb does not mean you should do it. But, it's pure cowardice of people to hide behind the law instead of having the cajones to come forward and say.......yes, I am an arrogant SOB who thinks my life is more valuable than the life of babies in the womb. At the end of the day, that is where it is. remember, it used to be acceptable for a cop to give a kid a whack on the back of the head or for teachers to do the same. It used to be acceptable for women not to vote. Society changes and learns. Sadly, there are still some who think killing their young is yippy skippy
If an analogy is to be presented it would help if an accurate analogy was used. All States have a basic speed law that limits speeds regardless of the posted speed limit due to road conditions. A driver can be cited for speeding in every state even if they're driving at 35 mph in a 70 mph posted area if the road conditions dictate the slower speed. A baby by definition does not exist in the womb. That point aside we can argue that the life of the woman is more valuable than the life of a fetus. That isn't arrogance, that is common sense. It was never acceptable for a cop or teacher to whack a kid on the back of the head. That is assault and battery and it's always been against the law. Yes, society does change over time and women were denied the Right to Vote for a long time and it was wrong. That wrong was corrected by the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution. I would suggest that those that oppose abortion today should follow the identical course pioneered by the Woman's Suffrage Movement. Promote a Constitutional Amendment and if Americans believe in the Amendment then it will be ratified by the States.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424 Shiva point to where it says a fetus is not a baby. Your making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again. The term fetus just designates the time frame from 8 weeks to birth. That is all it does. Nowhere does it define the baby as not a baby. It baffles me that intelligent human beings allow such emotions stances to cloud their better judgement. Hidin behind a court "opinion" as your sole defacto argument doesn't really justify your stance. Roe is what 50 years old almost? It is severely outdated with regards to where we are today in medical knowledge and procedures. I wouldn't hide behind it. We don't conceive non human beings Shiva. You know this and do does every other walking talking adult on these boards. So why not drop the ridiculous arguments and come clean about this? And you still haven't shown how a "fetus" can be murdered when a man kills a pregnant woman. A double homicide. Yet according to you a "fetus" is not a baby.
The first problem is medicine is not the domain science for determinatino of what is "a human" and what is not. How could a definition define "a baby as not a baby". You are assuming the premise - logical fallacy. "Its a baby because its a baby" is not a valid argument. What baffles me is that full grown adults can not figure out the difference between a single human cell, or a small cluster of human cells, and "a human". The product of conception is a single eukaryotic cell that reproduces asexually. A human is a complex organism comprised of many clusters of specialized human cells (organs - heart, brain, spine, liver) that reproduces sexually. Sit down and make a list for yourself of the differences between the single cell at conception and a born human and then list the differences between a zygote and a heart cell. Then tell me which of three is not like the others.
I understand why people use that defense. The other choice is to face the truth and stop fooling themselves; they support murdering babies
The truth is that a single cell is not a baby. A third grader knows this so it is suprising why so many adults have such trouble figuring it out. Show a 3rd grade child 3 things: A zygote cell, A heart cell, and A born human. Then and ask the child to tell you which thing is not like the others !!
So inane that even a 3rd grader can tell the difference between a single human cell and a born human ! You have no case, otherwise you would be able to support your inane claim.
Up next: Before pregnancy abortions! The government will decide that life begins at female arousal and make it illegal for women to become aroused unless they are married and can prove the financial wherewithal to raise a child.
hmm single cell how many pregnancies are discovered at initial conception? look into the mirror and be proud for what you support. Take a good hard look at the face of a living, breathing hypocricy because you have life; you were not aborted. You are here thanks to that which you despise, childbirth.
To find the medical definition of a "baby" a person must actually look up that definition as opposed to looking up another definition. http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072 As is noted a fetus exists up until the time of birth and, according to medical dictionaries, a baby exists from the time of birth (newborn child). A fetus and a baby are two different stages of human development separated by "birth" according to medical science. A baby has the inalienable Rights of a Person which are effective at the moment of birth. A fetus has no such rights. Nothing has changed related to the decision made in Roe v Wade. Medical procedures do not affect the inalienable Rights of a Person. As noted even if a fetus could be maintained by medical technology at 10 weeks and thereafter it would not change the inalianable Rights as the Rights must stand alone without dependency on anyone or anything else. If the machine can be disconnected and the incubated fetus could live then it is a person. If the machine cannot be disconnected then the fetus has not gained personhood by birth. As noted in Roe v Wade a fetus is a "potential" human being prior to viability. Until it can live on it's own outside of the womb it cannot be considered as a person with inalienable Rights. Inalienable Rights do not exist until individual sovereignty is reached as inalienable Rights cannot be dependent upon others nor can they impose an infringement or obligation on others. The problem is not with me but instead with those that simply don't understand the concept of inalienable Rights. I support the Right to Life but also understand when that Right is secured and it comes with individual sovereignty and it cannot exist prior to viability of the fetus. I've never made any statement in this regard but obviously a fetus might be saved if it is viable at the time a woman is murdered if the fetus is viable. It could be removed from the womb and still survive. That isn't always the case though and, unrelated to murder, there are cases where due to medical conditions a woman that is pregnant may not even be able to survive a c-section to save a fetus or have a natural birth and abortion is required to save the woman's life. This can occur late in a pregnancy and must be addressed. In such cases, if the pregnancy continues, the woman will die and the fetus may die as well. No one can morally condemn a woman to death just to save a fetus. As for the fetal homicide laws the point I made was that a fetus cannot be "killed" by another person without there being an attack on the woman. Fetal homicide laws always reflect an attack on the woman and are a secondary charge based upon the attack on the woman. "Murder" of the fetus is not and can never be a stand alone crime. It can only be a supplemental count added to the attack of the woman which violates the woman's inalienable Rights. As I noted by the analogy of "armed robbery" being an additional count added to "robbery" the death of a fetus is a supplemental criminal indictment and is not an independent criminal indictment.
A rational view currently, but with one potential problem - viability limit depends on technology. It is entirely possible that in not-so-distant future, there will be artificial wombs making all foetii, embryos and even fertilised eggs viable. What would your stance on abortion be in such a scenario?
As noted technology does not affect the inalienable Rights of a Person. The "person" must establish individual sovereignty and that cannot be done based upon technology which requires the individual to be dependent upon that technology. By way of example. We might have a wonderful "machine" that can allow a person to live, such as an iron lung when polio was a chronic problem. It could allow a person to live but the individual did not have an inalienable Right to the use of that machine. If they died for lack of the ability to secure the use of that machine their inalienable Right to Life was not violated. A fetus, whether dependent upon a machine or on the mother's womb, does not Right to Life unless it can live without the machine or the mother's womb. It has not established individual sovereignty which grants it inalienable Rigths such as the Right to Life. Once again it a failure to understand what an inalienable Right is that is the fundamental problem. An inalienable Right is that which the individual inherently possesses and cannot be dependent upon or impose an infringement upon another individual's inalienable Rights.
Yeah, you are basically stating that you consider right to life is a negative right. Still, this does not answer my question relevantly. First, abortion is not simply about letting a foetus die, it is an active act where the foetus is killed. Surely that would be murder in case of you polio patient analogy. Second, what if such machine is readily available for use at every hospital?
Actually, for a brief period of time, a baby is a single cell. But cell division and mother nature....aka life, quickly turns baby into millions of cells. I know what your trying to do, but it doesn't work. You can't fool mother nature and that is basically what pro-abortionists are arguing with on this. At conception a new life is created. Do you agree? If not, then there really is nothing else to talk about here.
No, removal of an individual from an iron lung in the polio example would not represent murder just like the removal of a fetus from the woman's womb is not murder. In neither case does the individual or the fetus have a Right to infringe upon the owner of the iron lung or on the woman respectively. An inalienable Right cannot be based upon an infringement. An inalienable Right must stand alone and it is established by individual sovereignty. A fetus does not have individual sovereignty as it cannot live outside of the womb prior to natural viability.
No, it's not rational at all. A newborn baby cannot survive on its own outside of the womb. Both instances, in or out of the womb, require external help in order for survival to proceed. I like your comment about future medicine. It's always been a sticking point with me and I have repeated many times. Medicine is moving in that direction. Medical advancement will eventually get there, then where will we be on this issue? If you ask me, the pro-life stance will become vindicated and the pro-abort stance will seize to exist and mankind will look back at us as barbarians for doing what we have done to our babies.
It takes nine months for a zygote to turn into a baby and yes it actually involves trillions of cells from what I understand.
Nice try yet again. Tell me, a baby pulled from the womb at 23 weeks and put in ICU, is that a baby Shiva? How did a fetus miracously turn into a baby before 9 months???? Is that a "fetus" sleeping in ICU?
Again, this is covered by a negative right to life. You may be arguing against a strawman here instead of what I said (even tough I certainly disagree with this view also, but thats for another discussion). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights Abortion is not an act of removing the foetus from the womb. It is usualy an act of termination of pregnancy by killing the foetus and then removing it. Correct analogy is that you kill the polio patient and then remove his dead body from the iron lung machine. Would that be murder? And would it be murder if there is another iron lung machine nearby with an owner willing to provide it for the polio patient?
Why not? This is probably referring to the inability of the infant to feed itself but that is voluntarily commitment agreed to by the guardian of the infant. It doesn't, for example, mandate that the mother feed the infant as she can turn the infant over to the State and the State will care for the infant. The obligation to care for an infant is a voluntary obligation and nothing more. An infant has no more "right to be fed" than any of us do with the expressed exception that the voluntary guardian of the infant agrees to feed and care for the infant. It is a voluntary commitment and not a mandated requirement being imposed upon anyone that chooses to not be the voluntary guardian of the child.
