Monday, January 3, 2011

A Baby Isn't "Tissue" or a "Group of Cells"

child-not-choiceAs you can see it's a baby not "tissue" or "a group of cells".  But for some reason the leftist feminists keep pushing this belief that a baby is no different then cancer. That's unfair,, it's not just feminists that want women to have the right to kill the child inside them. It's the men that want the right to push a women into getting an abortion and carry that weight around forever while the men get off scott free.                                                                    We have learned much about what an unborn baby can do and feel. We have seen multiples touching one another and responding to sound while much younger then we thought. Science has found that these babies can feel pain at a much younger age then we knew.                                                                                       But the left-wing want to act like this science never existed. It's an image of a baby in the womb not a "global warming theory" for goodness sake. It's seeming that the leftists went from pro-choice to pro-abortion regardless of what science has taught us.              I can't imagine seeing that that "clump of cells" looks and acts just like a little baby. Maybe that is why the suicide and depression rate among women that have had abortions is so high. And I know that when I've had any procedure by a doctor they are bound to tell me all the risks of having that procedure. Women need to know what could happen down the road after they have killed the baby. People do change their minds on abortion all the time. I did. I used to believe the lie that these babies are nothing more then a group of cells without feeling or pain receptors.


  1. #1 Killing in War Bad!
    #2 Killing Convicted Murders Bad!

    #3 Killing in Womb OK. WHY? Just wondering.

  2. 3. Control over ones own body as opposed to outsiders.

    A constitutionally protected right to ones own body.

    No matter how you feel about maternity and the woman making a choice concerning it, i thought you'd believe in the constitution?

    Does the constitution allow you to tell someone what they must do with their body and what is inside of it? Must they have that child?

    Taking a page from the Tea Party Idea, tell me where the constitution says the government can MANDATE that a woman have a child?

    It can't mandate buying health insurance, but it can mandate birth?

    Should the federal government mandate the carrying of a potential child (i say potential because of miscarriages and stillborn) for the months needed and require the mother to have the child. If the federal government required it wouldn't they be liable for all the costs associated with it. would adequate prenatal care and the use of a hospital be required? Would you force people to pay those bills?

  3. Joe then why is suicid illegal? Why can't a person starve themselves to death or do drugs if it's about controling your own body? Joe the Constitution gives us the right to LIFE,liberty and the persute of happiness. That is where it says it. See liberals don't think babies that have been cvonceived have the same right to LIFE as we do. There is still a waiting list in this country to adopt. Why don't you care about the babies MANDATE to LIFE? See we don't MANDATE birth Joe but we do MANDATE LIFE. Get it?

  4. Joe said..."potential child (i say potential because of miscarriages and stillborn)" And the mother could die on the way to the hospital or from some disease. Does that make her less valuable? Does a dieing old women have less value to you just like the baby in the womb? Can you see how twisted you sound?

  5. Chris,
    You haven't answered my questions yet? Please take the time to answer my questions.

    As for your questions, they are simply fallacies of association and not relevant to the discussion. I answered Al's question with a thoughtful and succinct two sentences. You chose to then bombard me with fallacious inductive criticisms not central to the debate.

    The simple matter of discussion is abortion, not suicide or anything else.

    And in that matter the Supreme court has ruled and correctly i might add that during the first term of a pregnancy neither the state, nor the federal government can not abridge a woman's rights to end a pregnancy.

    Do you want me to address the fallacies at the end of your post?

    1. The Constitution grants us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. The Declaration contains your claim. I thought a strict constructionist would know that?

    2. Appeals to emotions are not legitimate points. While there are plenty of people that would like to adopt, that doesn't matter in a constitutional discussion.

    3. As for my desire to see abortions rare and safe, that has little place in this debate. Attempting to poison the well doesn't make your points any more valid.

    4. Chris, it matters little when liberals see life beginning. The Constitution does not enumerate any rights to the unborn. And it doesn't give the power to legislature, executive branch or the courts to decide that. As i see it the SC dealt with that concept correctly in determining that the Constitution directly uses the word person.

    5. Nice little word play, but desperate. If you mandate that an embryo is life and as such the state may regulate abortion during the first trimester, you are then mandating that the woman has to carry and give birth. That would go back to my previous points that the constitution does not give the states or federal government that ability.

  6. Chris, nice personal attack. Of course you don't see how twisted you sound when you accuse me of stuff that has no basis in reality. I never mentioned old women or a mother dying. I never discussed any belief or value system in this debate.

    I have kept it to a discussion on rights.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.