13

This is what abortion has led to

Posted by ycandrea 6 years, 2 months ago to Government
595 comments | Share | Flag

OK. I just vomited and I am still very shaken up when I heard that the governors of Virginia and New York want to kill babies after they are born in the name of abortion rights. I am really upset. I have always believed a baby is a human being with the right to live from the point of conception. Yes, a woman has a right to make choices about her body, but she does not have the right to kill another human being. She can give it up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby. But now they can kill the child after it is born. Isn’t that murder? So, how do all of you who think it's OK to kill humans inside the womb think about killing them outside the womb feel? To me, there is no difference but some of you rationalize it. So did Ayn Rand. This is one issue I did not agree with her about and this is why. This is where your rights to abortion/murder have led. There should be a category for morality.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 11.
  • Posted by ycandrea 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Calling me names and belittling me does not make you right. Please watch the ad hominems.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem is that we have mob rule. We will always have mob rule so it's important to educate the mob, not just put a constitution in place.

    Because all it takes is a leader with a lot of public support and you get "a New Deal", who needs to pay attention to that old constitution. You get Supreme Court judges upholding the concept that growing wheat for your own use is "Interstate commerce".

    This would be the problem with any real "Gulch", because it would probably be stunningly productive and attract looters. If they became numerous enough they would vote in new rules, or seize Midas Mulligan's property "for the common good".

    Might does not make right, but it can certainly make reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My son was born 3 weeks early, no big deal, a little treatment for bilirubin, but I sat in my wife's room holding him that day getting to know him, there was obviously something going on behind those eyes.

    So, when a woman is 3 weeks from birth I know exactly what's in there -- it's a baby. Take it out and you'll get what I was holding. Now there is no instant when this happens. From conception on there is a continuity. About the only explicit change is a heartbeat, but that's really early.

    It makes the issue really clear to pretend the baby doesn't exist until it's outside and breathes it's first breath. But that isn't reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you really claiming lack of knowledge is why many of us consider it murder to kill a baby in the process of being born? That can very well be said of your opposing side also.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is precisely why I consider rape to be a separate case. In that case, the mother has not willingly entered into the deed or contract.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rainman0720 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, the fetus breaths amniotic fluid, and it eats via the umbilical cord.

    But how old were you when you had your first cognitive thought? At what age did you become sentient?

    Since I highly doubt a 1 month old child can think conceptually abut a future human life, they by your definition it's also not a person.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    jbrenner: Your example of a mother abandoning a child:
    The mother, by looking after the child creates and accepts her part in a Contract to undertake that care.
    This Contract cannot be dissolved until the child is old enough to understand and approve the ending of the Contract.
    Is such a Contract made by a woman before birth? Only if the woman intended to give birth and be a mother.
    Without Contract, there is no obligation nor duty.
    A government using Objectivist principles has the job of enforcing Contracts.
    What it shall not do is enforce the views of outsiders however emotional and enraged.

    On a re-read, I think the word 'Deed' fits the situation better than 'Contract'.
    A Deed is an statement of obligation by one party intended to be legally enforceable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes I know, I was just making an aside as anti-abortionists often compare those of us who are pro-choice to Nazi's, all the while oblivious to the fact that they actually shared their anti-abortion position.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "When does life begin" and "when does human life begin" are not necessarily the same question.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes that imposition of a false collectivist "responsibility" comes together with what we know is their own irresponsibility. They impose both with force, but get away with in large part through the "sanction of the victim".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The government does not have a "primary duty to protect the life of the innocent" equivocally misused to mean the unborn. The unborn cannot be "innocent" or "guilty" of anything. The notion makes no sense at all and it isn't even historic: there was no intent in the constitution to ban abortion, just as there is no such thing as "states' rights". Only individual human beings have rights. In particular they have legally protected rights under the 10th and 14th and amendments."
    ^This.
    So good to have someone point this out so clearly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Blarman is prone to making 'authoritative' pronouncements that are both false and irrelevant, trying to sound like response when it isn't. But aside from Nazi history -- even if their position had been the opposite -- they (and the early American eugenicists) have nothing to do with Ayn Rand and the rights of the individual.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wish I could up vote at the moment, because I would be up voting all your posts here.
    Thanks for your patience and clarity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you know what a person is? Do you know the physical and biological parasitical conditions and environment of a fetus? Do you not know the difference between pre and post birth, between a fetus and a child? Arbitrary assertions proclaiming what you claim "should exist" are irrelevant. You seem to confuse your own arbitrariness with the knowledge of others, "nya nya just because you say it, nya nya". That is no basis for vicious accusations of "murder".
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo