glassjester
Well-known member
I do not believe I saw anything in there about why you don't think 11-day-old babies should be killed.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
I do not believe I saw anything in there about why you don't think 11-day-old babies should be killed.
You are correct....you didn't.
glassjester
Well-known member
So I am asking again, Quip. Why do you think it should be legal to kill a fetal child, but not an 11-day-old baby?
I thought you were interested in the subject of abortion?
11 day olds have nothing to do with it.
glassjester
Well-known member
Why are you hesitant to answer?
Hesitancy has nothing to do with it...irrelevancy though does.
Why are you hesitant to accept that an 11 day old child has nothing to do with abortion?
glassjester
Well-known member
Because I am not convinced that an 11-day-old is really so different than, let's say, a -11-day-old.
Yet you would permit the killing of one, and not the other. Why?
Perhaps it may aid your argument better if you made clearer sense.
glassjester
Well-known member
What part of the post did you not understand?
The part where you say that X = X.
Not exactly a revelation. :idunno:
What's your point?
eider
Well-known member
But it is, isn't it?
I look forward to hearing from any 'pro-life' adherant about how they support the concept (indeed the practice) of offering free medical aid and welfare to +11 day infants whose parents cannot fully support them, or where the infant is ill, or disabled in any way.
Pro-Lifers, by that very definition, should be actively encouraging their governments to finance State or National health services for the provision of medicine and care for such infants, but it seems as if they make demands upon folks and then, once the baby is borne, wander off in pursuit of the next pro-life mission without actuially giving a care for ......... Pro-life.
How does that work?
glassjester
Well-known member
Are you saying infants should be killed, if their parents cannot support them, or if they are ill or disabled?
Should people only be given the right to live, if the government provides them with free healthcare?
glassjester
Well-known member
Why do you believe 11-day-olds should have the legal right to live?
Per our discussion and in relation to birthed individuals, TH made a succinct and relevant quote: What everyone is in agreement on is that at the point of vestment, our right to be cannot be abrogated by the state absent horrific exception.
(Where TH and I diverge is at exactly where this vestment point begins to exist.)
eider
Well-known member
No..... I'm asking why pro-lifers don't seem to take more interest in such cases, making provision for health care, medical assistance and specialist support in such cases.
If Pro-Lifers don't support such infants then they're not....... pro-life, surely?
I'm simply suggesting that infants should be given the right to free medical treatment, medications, specialist support, the whole pro-life 'thing', all the way to say, adulthood.
Yes......... that would be Pro-Life for infants, from conception to adulthood.
Well?
eider
Well-known member
Yes! Thinking about it, you are absolutely correct.
There is absolutely no difference between an 11 day foetus, 11 week foetus, -11 day baby, +11 day baby, +11 week baby, +11 year child.
So a Pro-Life supporter would support all children in every way possible, at every stage of development, including free pre-natal care, free healthcare, eyesight tests, spectacles, dentistry, education .... if necessary even clothing and food.
And don't forget that infants who are borne blind, or deaf, or spina-bifida, brain damaged, are going to need full State care to the highest level for their whole lives. Pro-life..... see?
Now that's what I would call a Pro-Life supporter, prepared to show courage for conviction.
But I'll bet that the majority are just arm-chair critics., not prepared to move a muscle to support an infant in a deprived area, not prepared to pay a little extra tax for provision of the above services...... not a real Pro-Life supporter. Just self righteous control freaks?
glassjester
Well-known member
Speak for yourself.
I am pro-life. All human beings have the right to life, from conception to natural death.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, Quip, I understand. I am seeking clarification on the reasoning behind the divergence.
Why do you think a fetal child's life should not be protected by the law, but an infant's life should?
What is it about an infant that makes his life worth protecting by law?
glassjester
Well-known member
This line of reasoning paints a pretty grim picture. You seem to think the governments of the world have no duty or moral obligation to protect the lives of their citizens, but rather hold their citizens' lives hostage, demanding a ransom - in the form of charity and taxes.
"If you won't pay for 'free' healthcare, we will allow these children to be killed! Pay up, or else!"
The protection, by law, of human life should be contingent upon nothing. The right to life is unalienable.
Any government that cannot or will not protect the right to live, of innocent human beings, is unfit to govern.
WizardofOz
New member
:first: POTD