At What Point Does a Baby Get Human Rights in Your View?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
a_priori said:
A baby gets human rights when its mother decides she wants to give birth. If she wants it, its a life. If she doesn’t want it, it isn’t a life.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...
To those who actually think that (just read your later posts for clarification).

Well, the Germans thought the Jews didn’t constitute a life during World War 2, so by that logic…
 
LRThunder said:
To those who actually think that (just read your later posts for clarification).

Well, the Germans thought the Jews didn’t constitute a life during World War 2, so by that logic…
Click to expand...
True, many times in the history of man one group or another was declared non-human and thus eligible for slaughter. This does not ever make it right or just. We need to pray for those that believe being wanted makes a child human.

If you go by the definition of being waned as human then I, and many others, am not human.
 
st_lucy said:
This statement is just really bothering me. So what if the mother doesn’t want the child BUT instead of killing him she decides to put him up for adoption? Does he still get human rights or does that only kick in when he gets his new parents?
Click to expand...
As the father of adopted multicultural kids I feel strongly that people who are pro-life should always consider the possibility of adopting kids. I will be eternally grateful to the birth moms of my kids for deciding against abortion and giving me the honor of raising them. They are astounding, accomplished and amazing human beings. They deserved to live. All babies deserve to simply live.
 
a_priori said:
He should. But he doesn’t.
Click to expand...
It is ironic that the same cast of charcters that feel a woman should not be obligated to be burdened to sustain a baby for a few months till birth are the same ones who say that teh man has to be burdened for the next 18 years supporting the baby. I figure that, from a secular point of view, if the father is liable to support the child till 18 years and 9 months after conception, then the mother should be also. At least until they can mutually agree to provide for the child in an altenate home through adoption.

I would like to see this discussion in the debate:

Moral Men: it is a child, therefore yiou can nto kill it.
Pro abortion Women: it isn’t a child yet.
Moral Men: So it doesn’t become a child till, you decide to have it?
Pro abortion Women: Yes.
Moral Men: So I have no say in this becoming a child?
Pro abortion Women: Right.
Moral Men: So I have no role in this?
Pro abortion Women: Right.
Moral Men: Then I can’t be held accountable for child support for a child I had no role in.
Pro abortion Women: uh, uh, uh,
Moral Men: If you agree not to murder the children, we agree to support them and protect them.
 
a_priori said:
OK. Let’s do it this way. A pregnant woman is driving down the road and suffers a gunshot wound that kills her baby. If she wants the baby then it is considered murder and the perpetrator is charged.

If another pregnant woman is driving down the same road carrying a baby of the exact same gestational age and happens to pull into an abortion clinic to have her baby sucked into a jar, then no one gets charged with murder.

Each baby is exactly the same. They both end up dead. The shooter is charged with murder. The abortion doctor makes another payment on his yacht.

With all due respect to your point, if you happen to be the baby, science has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Your post is awesome…this is a great way to explain this! Thanks for taking the time to post this. I think that while it’s sad we have to debate such an issue, it’s people like you who help others to understand the depravity of it all.
 
a_priori said:
OK. Let’s do it this way. A pregnant woman is driving down the road and suffers a gunshot wound that kills her baby. If she wants the baby then it is considered murder and the perpetrator is charged.

If another pregnant woman is driving down the same road carrying a baby of the exact same gestational age and happens to pull into an abortion clinic to have her baby sucked into a jar, then no one gets charged with murder.

Each baby is exactly the same. They both end up dead. The shooter is charged with murder. The abortion doctor makes another payment on his yacht.

With all due respect to your point, if you happen to be the baby, science has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I’m reminded of a comment George Will made about a high school couple who drowned their newborn child in the bathtub of of a motel room He said that if they had induced abortion an hour before the child was born all they could of been charged with was practicing medicine without a license. Instead they were charged with murder
 
estesbob said:
I’m reminded of a comment George Will made about a high school couple who drowned their newborn child in the bathtub of of a motel room He said that if they had induced abortion an hour before the child was born all they could of been charged with was practicing medicine without a license. Instead they were charged with murder
Click to expand...
Good point. Irony stacked upon irony.
 
a_priori said:
OK. Let’s do it this way. A pregnant woman is driving down the road and suffers a gunshot wound that kills her baby. If she wants the baby then it is considered murder and the perpetrator is charged.

If another pregnant woman is driving down the same road carrying a baby of the exact same gestational age and happens to pull into an abortion clinic to have her baby sucked into a jar, then no one gets charged with murder.

Each baby is exactly the same. They both end up dead. The shooter is charged with murder. The abortion doctor makes another payment on his yacht.

With all due respect to your point, if you happen to be the baby, science has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Thank you and forgive me for misunderstanding where you were coming from. :o
 
PLAL said:
For Practicing Catholic this is an easy answer = At Conception.

Why do some Pro-Choicers have a hard time EVEN stating “AT BIRTH”?

PLAL
Click to expand...
Because it isn’t a question of when but of IF.
If they are wanted.
If they are perfect.

Pro choicers do not value life as an absolute, but as a relative.
 
Starwynd said:
Okay, if babies have full rights as adult humans then they should be allowed to vote. Allowed to drink smoke and drive a car at any age.

After all, there is no difference between a baby an an adult.
Click to expand...
As far as right, moral thinking apparently not.
 
Starwynd said:
Okay, if babies have full rights as adult humans then they should be allowed to vote. Allowed to drink smoke and drive a car at any age.

After all, there is no difference between a baby an an adult.
Click to expand...
thomfra said:
To be honest, do find it very hard to relate a group of cells, and some DNA with a human, who is aware of it’s own existence. If you have no concept of self, or any concepts whatsoever, then what are you really.
Click to expand...
A child does not become AWARE OF ITS OWN EXISTENCE until about the age of five, or six. Does this mean up until that time, we can kill them? Betcha still haven’t had that talk have you?
 
Doesn’t a human have a Right to Life at Conception? Know a 10 week old Fetus shows Pain on face when being ‘harmed’? Are Medical 100% Documented technically Photos so showing. Pain Grimace of 10 week old shows ‘choice’ response to pain, does it not? Vivat Jesus Tony
 
**We ought not to think in so earth-bound, human measures alone. This way of thinking keeps out God. A child has not only human rights, but also Gods-rights. I repeat what I said before:
We all had BEEN in the mind of God, long before earthly conception. So: there is a life long before conception.
Verify this thought among other verses, e.g. here:
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in your mothers womb I knew you!”
To be or no to be is NOT matter of time, but matter of God.
**
 
elts1956 said:
A child does not become AWARE OF ITS OWN EXISTENCE until about the age of five, or six. Does this mean up until that time, we can kill them? Betcha still haven’t had that talk have you?
Click to expand...
Not having a concept of self might also apply to mentally handicapped. Kill them too? Hitler all over again?
 
smkw said:
Not having a concept of self might also apply to mentally handicapped. Kill them too? Hitler all over again?
Click to expand...
It seems to be easy for those who are pro choice, or pro abortion. When a human, in the womb, or out, is dehumanized, it is a simple matter of using any type of abortion method, or the gas chamber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top