A very Touchy Subject...

[Corinthian]

Me, Mimartin. That's who.

 

Uh...Tremendous difficulties can be overcome. Getting your brains flushed down a drain, on the other hand, cannot.

[Totenkopf]

Unfortunately, since the intervention of the government (Roe v. Wade), abortion has become more of a means of birth control than anything else. The mantra has become "You Rape 'em, We Scrape 'em. No Fetus Can Beat Us." And that is just plain wrong.

 

nice rhyme.

 

I've always hated the term pro-life.

 

Don't use it myself. Perhaps anti-abortion could have been added to the poll choices. I suspect that if the actual number of abortions were restricted to the percentage of rapes/complications/etc.., that the furor over the topic would be significantly reduced. It'd most likely be the difference between several tens of thousands vs >1 million under the current situation. #s have a logic of their own. I do find it curious that people who'd oppose capital punishment for criminals seem to have no problem with the procedure known as partial birth abortion (or really any 3rd trimester abortion for that matter).

[Aeroldoth]

Corinthian, I'd like to better understand your position. You seem to be saying that you value life at any cost, that existence itself is paramount above all. How far do you carry this view? The following questions aren't meant to bait, just to better understand where you're coming from.

 

Some people commit suicide because they feel the pain and suffering in their life is more than they can bear. They choose to end their lives because they cannot take one more second of it. If it were somehow possible, do you feel people should be rendered unable to commit suicide, because life is paramount?

 

The doctor says that a pregnancy has complications; she can only save the baby OR the mother, but not both. You are not related/connected to the woman in any way but nonetheless have final say in this matter. Which option would you choose? Why?

 

Countless people, military and civilian, die in wars. What is your view on war in general, and the deaths it causes? Note: it's easy to say one is opposed to war... nobody is for it. However, would you support immediate disbandment of all military forces? If not, aren't you tacitly supporting the deaths they cause?

 

Some governments execute their prisoners. Do you believe a government has the right to kill someone?

 

Abortion is illegal in the country; no woman may get an abortion for any reason. A woman and doctor are caught about to go through with the procedure. What do you feel should be done with them?

[Pho3nix]

Uh...Tremendous difficulties can be overcome.

You don't know that. You can't count on the chance that the baby will grow up to be a very strong person.

[Web Rider]

I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.

 

And this is where I shall say it for the LAST time. Where you are NO better than any of the people you are arguing against, where you are no better than any of the "pro-choicers" here which you call murderers.

 

You wish to impose massive suffering upon anyone just to create "life". Have you SEEN some of the results for deformities? For mental retardation? You are proposing that the DEATH of the mother is even valid if the child lives. How can you sit there and say that imposing a "life" upon the world that can barely think for itsself, needs constant care and expensive medical treatments, along with the death of it's mother is a "better" solution?

 

You are promoting just as much death and suffering as you accuse us of. So get off your high-horse and realize you're no better than the rest of us.

 

I would rather give a mother a second chance at a child, the chance to live out the rest of her life, then to force some half-assed thing into the world that the closest it ever comes to being regarded as human is it's DNA.

[Ray Jones]

Alright. Fair enough. And how rare is that form of heart failure, or forms of cancer that would make giving birth/caesarean section fatal, or be fatal before that was even a choice?

Recently I saw a documentation about that (Christian) family with three children and the mother was pregnant again, then in the third month of the pregnancy, the doctor diagnosed cancer. That cancer had to be treated immediately or both, mother and thus the baby had rather bad chances to survive the pregnancy. And the only possibly successful treatment seemed to be chemotherapy, which would most likely kill, or harm the baby badly, but save the mother, who would otherwise die sooner or later.

 

They thought a long time about what would be the best thing to do, about chemotherapy, abortion or risking the baby's life. They finally decided against any harmful therapy, hoping the cancer would go away due to less aggressive treatments they wanted to try. Although they said something like "we give our fate to god's hands", it seemed they decided that way not so much because of their religious beliefs, or any anti abortion attitude, but more because they simply did not wanted to risk their unborn child's health or life. This is hard decision to make, and I fully understand and respect their's.

 

At first, the treatment seemed to help, and all went fine. But like two months after the baby was born, the mother's state of health changed drastically to the worse, and she eventually died, leaving 4 children and her husband.

[Corinthian]

I hate Abortion Topics: They're the only place where a regard for human life can get you flamed.

 

Alright, Web Rider. Time to completely refute your points.

 

1: Never said I was better than any of you. However, I do hold my beliefs in a higher regard, and I stand by my belief that abortion is murder.

 

2: Impose massive suffering? Of course not. If the world could be a jolly happy Garden of Eden again, I'd be over the moon about it. Sit down and be groovy. But that's not the way the world works.

 

3: Your beliefs sicken me. You suggest that a deformed person, or a mentally retarded person, is such a waste of oxygen that they're better off DEAD? What the hell is wrong with you? And I thought I was politically incorrect.

 

3: I'm Pro-Life...how is that promoting death?

 

4:

I would rather give a mother a second chance at a child, the chance to live out the rest of her life, then to force some half-assed thing into the world that the closest it ever comes to being regarded as human is it's DNA.

 

I'm quoting that so you can't edit it out later. I think it speaks for itself.

 

Web Rider, I think you really need to talk to somebody about this. This is kind of frightening, the kinds of things you're saying. I like to think you don't actually believe this, but I don't sense any sarcasm.

[Web Rider]

You have repeatedly called us murderers, or at least myself. You therefore think you are better than us. Even though you would trade the life of the mother for that of the child as readily as I would do the opposite.

 

I suggest that SOME deformed people and mentally retarded are better off dead, yes. Because I've seen these people and the lives they live and they can only barely be regarded as "life".

 

You promote death because as I quoted above you have stated that you DO NOT CARE what pain and suffering happens to the mother or the child, you simply demand that ALL pregnancies must be carried out and that all conceptions must survive to "live".

 

I don't care if you think I'm gonna edit it. I said it, I stand by it. I have successfully argued pro eugenics for years. I'm not about to stop now. I believe in creating as little suffering as possible, and if certain breeding can accomplish that, and if aborting children that parents don't want/will be massivly retarded or deformed goes to that end, fine. However, eugenics is for another topic.

 

I haven't cared for being politically correct in ages. It's a waste of time and energy to only say what makes people happy and what people will agree with. I stand by my belief that some people in this world are better off dead. I can find no logical reason to keep somebody who will have no brain, never move, needs constant care for their entire life, and probly won't live past 20 alive. Much less trade the life of a perfectly healthy mother who had a singular "bad" pregnancy for theirs.

 

It accomplishes nothing, and only causes more suffering. How do you explain to the father that the mother could have lived if abortions where legal? How do you explain the near-lifeless form that has just exited her womb was worth her life to her parents? How do you tell her friends that this is "right", to preserve the "life" of something that is barely human in exchange for the death of a perfectly healthy woman, when an abortion would have saved her and given her the chance to have a healthy child?

 

How do you justify bringing a "life" into the world that is no more human beyond it's shape in exchange for death and suffering imposed upon others? I don't. I see the solution as an abortion, early on, saving lives, limiting suffering, and creating new chances for healthy children. You can hide behind your titles of "pro-life", but that doesn't change that you are willing to impose death and suffering on others to birth a child regardless of the consequences and situation.

[MdKnightR]

And the orphaned children that are never adopted?

 

There seems to be a misconception that all children that are put up for adoption eventually are adopted.

 

 

Ah, but there's the rub. Most people wanting to adopt want infants. It is the children that are orphaned later in life that tend not to get adopted.

[Achilles]

Ah, but there's the rub. Most people wanting to adopt want infants. It is the children that are orphaned later in life that tend not to get adopted.

Would you care to back that up with statistics? Or could you at least add a disclaimer that your statement is supposition? Thanks in advance!

[ET Warrior]

I hate Abortion Topics: They're the only place where a regard for human life can get you flamed.

I believe you are the one who started throwing around the terms 'evil', 'baby killer', 'sickening', and 'murderers'. Glass houses and all that.

 

1: Never said I was better than any of you. However, I do hold my beliefs in a higher regard, and I stand by my belief that abortion is murder.

It was certainly implied with the whole 'evil murderers' thing.

 

3: Your beliefs sicken me. You suggest that a deformed person, or a mentally retarded person, is such a waste of oxygen that they're better off DEAD?

There is a difference between being dead and having never existed.

 

3: I'm Pro-Life...how is that promoting death?

I've always hated the terminology pro-life. Especially when it really seems that the majority of the "Pro-life" group is also Pro-War and Pro-Death Penalty. Seems a contradiction of terms...

 

I'm not implying you belong to either of those groups, that was more a general side-thought.

 

I also find it baffling how someone can afford the full rights of a human being to a group of cells with less cognitive capacity than a goldfish, and in fact is probably less cognizant of it's environment than a houseplant.

 

Yes, I am aware that eventually it will likely develop a great deal of cognitive capabilities, but only if it is given enough time and the proper conditions in which to replicate. (Those conditions usually being the uterus of it's host). However, this argument can also be made of any of the millions and millions of sperms cells that I have generated in my life, all of which I have (so far, so good) denied the correct conditions in which to multiply into a separate, cognizant being. Am I a monster for participating in safe sex practices? Have I committed murder because I let those poor sperm cells die without finding an egg to join with? Are women who choose not to get pregnant every single month that they are able being evil?

 

*Jae enters thread and smells smoke*

 

Everyone, tone it down a few (dozen) notches, please. Cut the baiting and flaming, please. I really don't want to hand out more warnings. Focus on the issue, not on attacking the writer with whom you disagree.

 

(ET, I'm not picking on you--you just happen to have the last post that I can edit into atm.)

[MdKnightR]

Would you care to back that up with statistics? Or could you at least add a disclaimer that your statement is supposition? Thanks in advance!

 

Here's some stats, but I SUPPOSE these won't do much to satiate your need of numbers. [/sarcasm]

 

Children adopted from foster care, Fiscal Year 1998.

 

* Age of Children Adopted - 46% were 1-5 years old, 37% were 6-10 years old, 14% were 11-15 years old, 2% were 16-18 years old and 2% were under a year old when adopted from the public welfare system.

 

Source: http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

[Achilles]

Here's some stats, but I SUPPOSE these won't do much to satiate your need of numbers. [/sarcasm]

 

Children adopted from foster care, Fiscal Year 1998.

 

* Age of Children Adopted - 46% were 1-5 years old, 37% were 6-10 years old, 14% were 11-15 years old, 2% were 16-18 years old and 2% were under a year old when adopted from the public welfare system.

 

Source: http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

So 2% (from your source) equals most? Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the link!

[MdKnightR]

So 2% (from your source) equals most? Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the link!

 

 

For some reason I just knew that you wouldn't catch that these are statistics for children in the public welfare system. (Gotta learn to read between the lines ) These children have been taken into state custody for any number of reasons. It takes time to do that, so no, there wouldn't be that many children under one year of age that could be adopted. Of course these stats don't take into account all the adoptions done through agencys and other sources, but it does prove my point. According to these statistics, 48% of all adoptions out of public welfare system occur for children between birth - 5 years of age.

[Jae Onasi]

My sister-in-law has adopted 2 boys out of the foster care system (she's fostered dozens of children). The reason most kids don't get adopted out of the welfare in the first year of life is it takes a long time to get the order through the court systems to get the children removed permanently from their parents and takes more time to get the adoption process done.

 

However, adoption is an alternative that should be presented to women considering aborting.

[Corinthian]

You have repeatedly called us murderers, or at least myself. You therefore think you are better than us. Even though you would trade the life of the mother for that of the child as readily as I would do the opposite.

 

I suggest that SOME deformed people and mentally retarded are better off dead, yes. Because I've seen these people and the lives they live and they can only barely be regarded as "life".

 

You promote death because as I quoted above you have stated that you DO NOT CARE what pain and suffering happens to the mother or the child, you simply demand that ALL pregnancies must be carried out and that all conceptions must survive to "live".

 

I don't care if you think I'm gonna edit it. I said it, I stand by it. I have successfully argued pro eugenics for years. I'm not about to stop now. I believe in creating as little suffering as possible, and if certain breeding can accomplish that, and if aborting children that parents don't want/will be massivly retarded or deformed goes to that end, fine. However, eugenics is for another topic.

 

I haven't cared for being politically correct in ages. It's a waste of time and energy to only say what makes people happy and what people will agree with. I stand by my belief that some people in this world are better off dead. I can find no logical reason to keep somebody who will have no brain, never move, needs constant care for their entire life, and probly won't live past 20 alive. Much less trade the life of a perfectly healthy mother who had a singular "bad" pregnancy for theirs.

 

It accomplishes nothing, and only causes more suffering. How do you explain to the father that the mother could have lived if abortions where legal? How do you explain the near-lifeless form that has just exited her womb was worth her life to her parents? How do you tell her friends that this is "right", to preserve the "life" of something that is barely human in exchange for the death of a perfectly healthy woman, when an abortion would have saved her and given her the chance to have a healthy child?

 

How do you justify bringing a "life" into the world that is no more human beyond it's shape in exchange for death and suffering imposed upon others? I don't. I see the solution as an abortion, early on, saving lives, limiting suffering, and creating new chances for healthy children. You can hide behind your titles of "pro-life", but that doesn't change that you are willing to impose death and suffering on others to birth a child regardless of the consequences and situation.

Fine. I'm better than you. Happy?

 

You've seen their lives, and I'm sure they all wish they were dead too. So basically, unless you're a flawless human with no deformities and an intelligence of approximately 100 IQ or above, with nice teeth and pretty hair, you're 'less than human' and are a waste of breath. (Kindly note I'm not entirely serious about most of that.)

 

I don't care about pain and suffering because they can all be overcome. Getting killed is sort of, you know, permanent. The last time anyone got up out of their tomb was 2000 years ago, and you don't believe that anyway.

 

You've successfully argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, that makes no sense. Who were you arguing with, a six year old? Anyone in their teenage years or above tends to have their beliefs set in stone with enough stubbornness that they aren't going to shift. And you argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, crap. Guess I won't be joining the Clans, since I'm a pathetic Freebirth.

 

I agree some people are better off dead. However, I'm of the opinion that you know, you've got rights until you commit crimes. Also, please tell me you're never going to be come a doctor.

 

I have never suggested that you should carry a birth out if it is guaranteed to cause the death of the woman. Creative reinterpretation, though, Web Rider. I gotta give you some credit.

 

How do you justify that someone who is not your intellectual peer or able to run as fast as the other kids or can't catch a ball because he's missing a finger somehow less than human?

[Achilles]

For some reason I just knew that you wouldn't catch that these are statistics for children in the public welfare system. (Gotta learn to read between the lines )

Actually, I did "catch" it, but I didn't choose to assign the same significance to it that you did.

 

These children have been taken into state custody for any number of reasons. It takes time to do that, so no, there wouldn't be that many children under one year of age that could be adopted.

And your statistics/supporting evidence for this claim?

 

Of course these stats don't take into account all the adoptions done through agencys and other sources, but it does prove my point. According to these statistics, 48% of all adoptions out of public welfare system occur for children between birth - 5 years of age.

Right, but you said "infant" which is the first year (0-1). After that, they're "toddlers" (1-5).

 

PS: Are these stats good or not? You seem comfortable using them when it appears to support your argument but want to play some sort of "gotcha" game when you think you've tricked me into something.

 

My sister-in-law has adopted 2 boys out of the foster care system (she's fostered dozens of children). The reason most kids don't get adopted out of the welfare in the first year of life is it takes a long time to get the order through the court systems to get the children removed permanently from their parents and takes more time to get the adoption process done.

 

However, adoption is an alternative that should be presented to women considering aborting.

As I have already stated in this thread, adoption is completely unrelated to the issue. The question at hand is whether or not women have the legal right to safe abortions. Availability of adoption has absolutely nothing to do with that question.

 

I do want to take a moment to give kudos to your sister-in-law as well as all others that care for these children. My hat's off to them.

[Aeroldoth]

How odd. This thread has been suffering tech difficulties for me. I couldn't understand why several people were responding to, and quoting, ET when none of his posts were in the thread. Then, when I post, a page of responses suddenly appears after mine, including ET's. So my post was time-warped to page 2, #78, and several posts still appear out of order to me.

 

Anyways, I wrote a post to you Corinthian HERE.

[mimartin]

How odd. This thread has been suffering tech difficulties for me. I couldn't understand why several people were responding to, and quoting, ET when none of his posts were in the thread. Then, when I post, a page of responses suddenly appears after mine, including ET's. So my post was time-warped to page 2, #78, and several posts still appear out of order to me.

Make tk102 an administrator and the place goes to pot (not really).There was a problems with the clocks being ahead yesterday they were reset last night by matt, but that did mess up the order of some of the post. I could not even post last night do to the problems, but after I PM tk he got the problem fixed.

 

You have to read around, because I almost missed some very good post.

[Aeroldoth]

I've always hated the terminology pro-life. Especially when it really seems that the majority of the "Pro-life" group is also Pro-War and Pro-Death Penalty. Seems a contradiction of terms...

I saw a video many years ago, I believe it was Ralph Reed, discussing this topic in a strategy session. The point the speaker made was that they didn't want to be, couldn't be, "anti-abortion". To be "anti-" something made people less likely to support you. You couldn't be against something, you had to be for something. So, the speaker proposed, they should stop calling themselves "anti-abortion" and instead "pro-life".

 

EDIT: Thanks Mimartin, that explains... well, everything.

[Corinthian]

Corinthian, I'd like to better understand your position. You seem to be saying that you value life at any cost, that existence itself is paramount above all. How far do you carry this view? The following questions aren't meant to bait, just to better understand where you're coming from.

 

Some people commit suicide because they feel the pain and suffering in their life is more than they can bear. They choose to end their lives because they cannot take one more second of it. If it were somehow possible, do you feel people should be rendered unable to commit suicide, because life is paramount?

 

The doctor says that a pregnancy has complications; she can only save the baby OR the mother, but not both. You are not related/connected to the woman in any way but nonetheless have final say in this matter. Which option would you choose? Why?

 

Countless people, military and civilian, die in wars. What is your view on war in general, and the deaths it causes? Note: it's easy to say one is opposed to war... nobody is for it. However, would you support immediate disbandment of all military forces? If not, aren't you tacitly supporting the deaths they cause?

 

Some governments execute their prisoners. Do you believe a government has the right to kill someone?

 

Abortion is illegal in the country; no woman may get an abortion for any reason. A woman and doctor are caught about to go through with the procedure. What do you feel should be done with them?

 

1: People can commit suicide all they want. It's their life, if they want to snuff it out, go right ahead.

 

2: I feel compelled to choose the baby. The mother has already lived her life, the baby hasn't even had a chance to cross the start line. It's not an easy choice either way, but I feel that, in this case, the baby should get a chance to live.

 

3: War is a different situation. Wars are fought for generally two purposes - Conquest, or Defense. Sometimes, these overlap, and there are occasionally other reasons. But if it's a Defense War, I have no problem with it. A Government has the right to take lives in the defense of it's people.

 

4: Yep. People like Bin Laden, Hussein, Ted Kaczynski (Better known as the Unabomber) have forfeited their right to live by taking away the life of innocents, and thus deserve to die.

 

5: Prison for the mother. The Doc should be executed.

[ET Warrior]

A Government has the right to take lives in the defense of it's people.

 

have forfeited their right to live by taking away the life of innocents, and thus deserve to die.

 

The Doc should be executed.

And further evidence why I feel that the label Pro-Life is completely inconsistent and misleading.

 

@aeroldoth: I do understand, if you use the word anti- in your groups description you can't help but come across at least a little negative, it just seems terribly dishonest is all.

 

I think you are far too lax with your criteria. I mean, having a egg ready for fertilization each month is just the beginning. Any woman that isn't spending every possible moment copulating in hopes of fertilizing said egg is taking a terrible chance that the egg might be wasted..

That was actually my meaning. As long as a woman is not currently pregnant or is too physically weak from her last pregnancy she should be constantly attempting to conceive a child. Not giving her egg the correct environment in which to produce another human being is robbing that (soon to be) unique genetic code at it's right to life.

 

I do find it curious that people who'd oppose capital punishment for criminals seem to have no problem with the procedure known as partial birth abortion (or really any 3rd trimester abortion for that matter).

Well you can certainly count me out of that group, aside from potentially cases where a medical professional gives the woman a high probability of death if she carries the child to term. In that case, I think the fully developed human with memories, family, and friends gets the right to choose.

[Web Rider]

Fine. I'm better than you. Happy?

I don't want you to be PC, I want you to be honest. I don't care if I don't like what you say, the point of speaking your mind is to speak your mind. So yes, your honesty makes me happy. ^_^

 

You've seen their lives, and I'm sure they all wish they were dead too. So basically, unless you're a flawless human with no deformities and an intelligence of approximately 100 IQ or above, with nice teeth and pretty hair, you're 'less than human' and are a waste of breath. (Kindly note I'm not entirely serious about most of that.)

straw man. I've rather clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about. If you want to address what I've actually talked about, great! Otherwise stop winning your own arguments.

 

I don't care about pain and suffering because they can all be overcome. Getting killed is sort of, you know, permanent. The last time anyone got up out of their tomb was 2000 years ago, and you don't believe that anyway.

yeah, well I DO care about pain and suffering. And I'm not going to try and justify killing people to save every god-forsaken child in the world.

 

You've successfully argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, that makes no sense. Who were you arguing with, a six year old? Anyone in their teenage years or above tends to have their beliefs set in stone with enough stubbornness that they aren't going to shift. And you argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, crap. Guess I won't be joining the Clans, since I'm a pathetic Freebirth.

They ranged from late teens to late 60's. It was a college classroom. It's easy to diss eugenics when all you know of it is the propagandized "OMG HITLERZ!!!"

 

I agree some people are better off dead. However, I'm of the opinion that you know, you've got rights until you commit crimes. Also, please tell me you're never going to be come a doctor.

and I'm of the opinion you have to be born to have rights. A cluster of cells is not a child, it's not living any more than my hand, and it HAS NO RIGHTS.

 

I have never suggested that you should carry a birth out if it is guaranteed to cause the death of the woman. Creative reinterpretation, though, Web Rider. I gotta give you some credit.

Since you said earlier that you don't care how much pain and suffering you put people through to "save" every birth in the world, it's not hard to extrapolate that into justifying killing somebody.

 

How do you justify that someone who is not your intellectual peer or able to run as fast as the other kids or can't catch a ball because he's missing a finger somehow less than human?

Oh please, stop the straw men already. I have already clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about and they are NOT THEM. So stop making up BS.

 

2: I feel compelled to choose the baby. The mother has already lived her life, the baby hasn't even had a chance to cross the start line. It's not an easy choice either way, but I feel that, in this case, the baby should get a chance to live.

So a 16 year old who's pregnant(and giving birth will kill her), has "lived" enough to validate her death to birth a child?

 

3: War is a different situation. Wars are fought for generally two purposes - Conquest, or Defense. Sometimes, these overlap, and there are occasionally other reasons. But if it's a Defense War, I have no problem with it. A Government has the right to take lives in the defense of it's people.

 

4: Yep. People like Bin Laden, Hussein, Ted Kaczynski (Better known as the Unabomber) have forfeited their right to live by taking away the life of innocents, and thus deserve to die.

 

5: Prison for the mother. The Doc should be executed.

Then quit saying you are pro life. you AREN'T All those people, like it or not, are life, as defined exactly the same way as a newborn baby. They have human DNA, they are animate and so on.

 

Hide behind your labels if you must, but you are anti-abortion, you aren't pro-life. You are just as much a "sick" and "disgusting" "murderer" as I am. You simply have different reasons for killing. You justify yours with your morality, I justify mine with my morality.

[Aeroldoth]

Corinthian, thanks for answering. I gather from your responses that you feel life is always valuable except when a person has somehow forfeited it, however that's defined. Would that be a good summary?

 

Let me ask two final questions.

 

A person is incapacitated, be it coma, mind is a vegetable, what-have you, and have been so for some time. Medicine says there is nothing they can do for them, except keep them on life support. You are the sole relative. Would you pull the plug?

 

I gather from other threads that you consider yourself a devout Christian. To what extent would you say your faith and your religious views influence your opinions on abortion and, to a lesser extent, issues in general? Some? A little? A lot? How much are your views influenced by facts/ figures/ studies, and how much by your faith/ religion?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Wrong. I don't care whether it's first, second, or third trimester, really. It's just as evil to kill a child no matter how old the child is.

Not so. A third trimester fetus is far more developed than a two days old fetus. Memory, self-consciousness, self-sufficiency (a newborn baby, heck, even a premature baby in many cases, survives being removed from the womb, a 5 days old one doesn't), etc. are developed to a greater degree.

 

How does it not meet the criteria for alive? It's obviously animate. It's cells are reproducing. Hell, it HAS cells.

That's but one of the criteria for life. The full list is as follows:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
   
2. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
   
3. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
   
4. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
   
5. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
   
6. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
   
7. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
   
8. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Ah, yes, the magical gulf where suddenly, sentience leaps into existence at the moment of the third trimester.

Magical leaps of sentience are within the realm of Christians.

 

I don't really care when the abortion happens, it's still murder, even if it doesn't have equivalent physical and mental capabilities to a fully-grown human. I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.

Then surely you're against male masturbation and female menstruation, too? After all, every single sperm cell and egg has the potential of developing into a human being. Who are we to 'murder' them by menstruating or ejaculating them away?

 

Seriously, a sperm and egg separated have the same level of consciousness as do two that have been merged. Yet one is considered a 'child' to you and given the right to life pretty much no matter what.

 

I've always hated the term pro-life.

If more pro-lifers actually were pro-lifers and not fanatical supporters or executions and wars, maybe the term would at least fit.

 

I do find it curious that people who'd oppose capital punishment for criminals seem to have no problem with the procedure known as partial birth abortion (or really any 3rd trimester abortion for that matter).

Partial-birth abortion is an emergency procedure carried out when life is at stake. It's not like they have a choice.

 

Some people commit suicide because they feel the pain and suffering in their life is more than they can bear. They choose to end their lives because they cannot take one more second of it. If it were somehow possible, do you feel people should be rendered unable to commit suicide, because life is paramount?

I know you didn't ask me, but yes, absolutely. Not only because most anguish in your life actually does get better, but also because suicide has such a disastrous effect on your loved ones (the group most at risk of suicide is the grieving who have lost loved ones to suicide). If you're suffering from some disease that does not get better and causes you unbearable pain, then I support your right to get euthanasia. In all other cases, though, it's a big no from me.

 

You wish to impose massive suffering upon anyone just to create "life". Have you SEEN some of the results for deformities? For mental retardation? You are proposing that the DEATH of the mother is even valid if the child lives. How can you sit there and say that imposing a "life" upon the world that can barely think for itself, needs constant care and expensive medical treatments, along with the death of it's mother is a "better" solution?

I'd post links and pictures, but I'm quite certain that forum-mommy would kick in and remove the link due to the PG-13 limit. Do a google search yourself.