sometimes its not about being cold hearted, more like being rational.

like i said before, i'm not trying to make decisions for other people.

Oh please... don't use that argument.

^ and why not? it's a legitimate question that happens to refute your belief. don't say "don't use that argument" just because you can't argue against it.

So by those standards, you can murder a child as long as it can't comprehend nor speak back? It does take time for a child to develop emotions or consciousness even, after birth.

And if we're gonna speak about pain or the emotion of anguish... there's painless and fast deaths, does that mean it's ok to murder someone painlessly?

Because it is a dumb and irrational argument.

Cows and chickens definitely feel pain when they get slaughtered. Animals have shown to be emotional: aggression, sad, happiness.

If everything was based on how the thing feels, we should all be vegetarians.

In all other aspects of life we should be a little more humane. Children in other countries are SAD and UPSET because they are starving and dying. Maybe we should do something to you know, save them.

Just because it has the capacity to feel bad doesn't mean it deserves special treatment or be acknowledge as a real person.

Adoption is a great option but it's noe 100% perfect. Thousands of children, thousands, are left unadopted. If the amount of unwanted pregnancies carried to term were to increase, so would the number of unadopted children. The number of people seeking adoption would remain static since there already aren't enough people looking to adopt to begin with.

If a woman in Arizona decides to get an abortion, it would not affect me at all here on the East Coast. So why the hell would I want to vote to control her life? Even if she's from the same state, her getting an abortion (paying out of her own pocket) would not hurt me at all. So why would I or anyone else in a similar situation would want to intrude on someone else's life?

Just because they are doing something you don't like? Deal with it. There's always people doing shit you don't agree with (given that it's not actually illegal like murder and rape) but that does not give you any right to change it. You don't like your eggs scrambled? Okay, don't eat them. But you have no right to ban scrambled eggs from breakfast for everyone else.

Are you serious? You are comparing a baby to a chicken and a cow... food that we eat?? we don't eat babies... at least not in the USA.

are you saying the lives of cows and chickens are inferior to a human baby's?

Vegetarians could use that argument... so what's your argument then?

Are you talking to yourself?

She was saying that most animals are better qualified to fit your "feeling" and "living" defense of the unborn child. If you're going to say that a fetus should be given the "right to life," because it "grows, moves, eats, etc. etc." you're also going to be required, if you have any hope of not being identified as a hypocrite, to extend that "right to life," to non-human animals (many of which "feel" much more than any fetus).

Babies are humans, there are laws against killing humans, not animals.

Are the laws preventing the abortion of a fetus? There are court rulings that goes into specifics of certain procedures and policies, but is there a law?

As far as I understand, the law isn't what's being debated. It's a question of right or wrong (of course, whether or not the law is right or wrong does blend into the argument).

My point is, bringing up "laws" doesn't counter anything that is being asked. Nate (and others) are simply saying that if you believe that the killing of something that can "grow, move, eat, breathe, sleep, feel emotions, and feel pain" is wrong, since animals fall into that category as well, then the killing of animals is also wrong by your definition of a living being.

I was simply stating the superiority of humans vs animals. And the definition of a living being is more complex than that. I'm talking about a human baby not animals because the name of this thread is Abortion Version Two, not are animals equal to humans.

Killing benevolence at any stage of life should not be allowed, period.

^ agreed.
IMO, at least.
But, `tweeti, it's not your place to say that humans are superior to animals, and i'm not trying to turn this into the "killing animals is wrong" thread, but you have no place to say that killing humans is wrong and that killing animals isn't.
/rant

sorry i thought this was a debate. I'm not saying it's ok to go kill a cat on the side of the street just because. My view on killing animals is for food.

i'm sorry this is off-topic, but i fine that statement pretty insane. its all my opinion though.

why?

We were showing a discrepancy in your argument. Your argument for "right of life," in inclusive of non-human animals. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, some insects have more of the qualities you presented than some of the stages of a unborn child. So, even if you're trying to argue for a "human baby," you have to realize that your argument is widely inclusive (it extends outside of your mere intention). And, because of that discrepancy (and now obvious contradiction), your argument fails.

You can't have your cake and eat too.

Everyone basically said what my point was.

If you're going to argue that we can't kill a fetus because it has feelings, then that principle has to be extended to all living beings that have feelings. The main point is that the fetus feels sad/pain when it dies/aborted. So why is the fetus' pain more important or significant than any other animal's pain/suffering?

You obviously do not argue based on science or any other substantial beliefs. it's, "AWW... the poor babies! Think of them! It's bad. It's wrong. It's what I believe so I'll force it on other people."

How about:
-Thousands of children get left unadopted in our child services systems. Budgeting for these services are getting a severe cut and the workers are already overloaded without new ones being trained.
- The demographic for abortions is for underprivileged and low-income places. It would be fine if people had the resources to help them care for the children but welfare is VERY lacking in this situation.
- MILLIONS! MILLIONS! Millions of children that are fully developed and out of the womb are suffering around the world. They are sick and hungry and dying. They are consciously suffering and there's no real end until they die. A fetus is never fully conscious and its suffering does not last more than a few seconds. You are advocating for protection of the kids. How it's wrong to cause them pain. What about these children? Aren't they in pain too?

Instead of getting all riled up on kids that don't exist yet, why not focus that attention on kids that really do need it?

Apparently it's ok to kill a child even after birth... the latest at age 2. Because it takes them about 2 years to realize emotions, personalities etc... o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Peter Singer has a strong point. lol He's a leader of ethics as well

Was that a rebuttal to my point?

I'm not saying that we should kill things that don't have feelings. I'm saying that it's a horrible principle to base your argument on; that if it has feelings, don't kill it.

No. Was adding more to the thread.

I find that really hard to believe. I'm sure a baby realizes emotions and personalities WAY before 2 years old. I mean, even as a newborn, a baby can tell whos the one taking care of them and when they're not happ.

Read up on Peter Singer's point of view... psychologically, scientifically, socially, lol almost winning my agreement.