As I said, I'm not surprised that you didn't read the article, which is a shame, as it really brings to light the suffering of a handicapped rape-baby that died in pain after a year of suffering in a world she didn't understand. Her name was Zoe.
And as I said before, I won't admit any such thing. To murder, means to kill another human being; and in my eyes, fetuses aren't that. I hunt animals; I don't consider that murder, either.
But you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And again, as I said before, I don't think either of us are convincing each other of anything--just hardening our beliefs about the other side. So perhaps this conversation should just stop while we're somewhat ahead.
I won't "come to grips" with anything, since I don't believe fetuses to be humans until they are born. They're living, of course--but many things can be alive without being human. If you plant a seed and then dig it up, you haven't cut down a tree. You've dug up a seed.
I don't believe a fetus gains rights or 'person hood' until it is no longer in the parasitic stage.
"Angry enough to kill"? This isn't even close to angry. You're the one calling me a murderer, remember. I'm just horrified by the backwards steps our society is taking, and I thank my lucky stars every single day that I was not born a bible-thumping, gun-toting, woman-beating American.
What DOES make me angry is women being forced to carry their rapist's children and being sued for custody rights; impoverished women being forced to carry children that they know they can't afford; babies born addicted to drugs; a bloated and broken foster care system; children being born with mass challenges and having no sense of the world, but being tied to it by their pain just the same; thirteen year olds that are forced to ruin the rest of their young lives because they had sex--which every. person. does.
It's just so gruesomely interesting to me that unborn babies are the ultimate in human morality, but the women carrying them mean less than nothing. How on earth does that work?
Do you really think a child is going to grow up happy and healthy when they have a mother that hates them and was forced to keep them? That certainly doesn't seem like a happy life to me.
If you think you can spare a half-thought of real time for us on the other side, give https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-abortion-law-rape_n_5cdc3627e4b09d94af53f471 this article a read. It doesn't bash anybody, it's merely an informed look of a woman who was raped and was forced to give birth to not only the rapist's child, but a severely handicapped child.
Ultimately though, I don't expect you to read that article. I know there's no reasoning with either side. You clearly think I'm a crazy murderer, and I think you're an old-fashioned, right-wing misogynist.
Perhaps that's just the way of the world.
It is already a choked system--that is what I've been saying. So imagine just how many more children will be born to such circumstances (state care, foster system, homelessness, etc) when abortions are no longer available. You think there has been an increase in children in government care in the recent past? Nothing compared to what it will be in the next few years.
And you are correct, whether or not it is "living" is not the hazy part of science, I agree. Perhaps I misspoke. It is whether or not this "living thing" is deserving of person-hood, rights, and considerations of that and above the undeniably living thing that it is feeding on. Just because something is living, does not mean that it is a person. By uprooting a seed, you have not cut down a tree. You have uprooted a seed.
And do please note that I was merely referencing the literal definition of a parasite, which is 'an organism that feeds off the nutrients of another'. When you break it down, the literal actual language, and put all connotation aside, fetuses are parasites.
I agree that this conversation is over. I'm very sorry you feel that the bodies of the nation's women are your own to regulate.
But you do need to accept that the viewpoints you have can and do result in unwanted children entering an already bloated system, OR, result in children being born to unfit mothers. It can't be argued. Not in all cases, obviously, but in many.
Is a life of misery, pain, and abuse for babies that don't know what they did to deserve it, truly better?
Because it is all such a hazy part of science, I don't think it's the government's duty to just decide what's right, and tell us what we believe.
If you personally think that a child is a person before it is born, that's awesome, and by all means, don't support abortion. I respect your right to make that decision. But at the same time, if somebody DOESN'T believe a child is a person before it's born, then who are we to tell them otherwise?
A human is undeniably a human when it is born; when it leaves the parasite stage and becomes a scientifically 'alive' organism. That isn't up for debate.
But as for whether or not that "life" begins earlier is a personal belief system. I'm not going around telling people that they have to become Buddhists. It's a different branch of the exact same tree.
