|
Originally Posted by Tipsy It seems you use arguments that have been spouted out and put down time and time again in this post.
What do I mean when I say posterity? I mean our grandfathers, our fathers, us, our sons, etc, no matter what stage of development they are in, whether they are unborn babies, or crippled old men who live their life in a retirement home. What do I mean, it is quite simple, every single future generation from our founding fathers onward, from George Washington, to the president of the United States in the year 3000 (if it still exists then). Every single one of those people is protected by the constitution.
-Well then I will rebuttle this by saying that it could potentially harm the posterity of this unborn child if it is born. Lets say a couple have sex and they concieve a child. But wait. This couple is poor and cannot even afford to pay for the prenatal care. So they opt for an abortion. It is not your right to say they cannot. It is the mother's right to say whether or not she wants to carry out the full 9 months of pregnancy. And they are only protected once they are born. Until then they are not even considered citizens.
There are a lot of people who cannot survive on their own who are already born and depend on other such as people with mental illnesses, does that mean that when they are perfectly healthy except in the mind that they should just be murdered because they are no longer wanted? If a person requires medical treatment and require some sort of device to help them sustain their life until their body can again, does that mean we should just pull the plug on people that will have a full recovery, just temporarily cannot support themselves? If somebody is laying on the street bleeding to death does that mean that they shouldn't be brought to the hospital to be saved because at that time in their life, their body requires the support from others, through different medical practices? And should this argument also mean we might as kill our just born babies because they too with their mental capacity still require others to care for them and cannot what is necessary for them to live.
-These people however are already born. I am not saying have a child and then kill it after you have already given birth. You are describing abortion as if people have a child and it is outside the mother and they kill it. For the first two trimesters the fetus will not survive outside. Even if you did a c-section it still would not be able to survive with medical help.
What potential life does sperm have without an egg? I'll answer that for you, none. There is no potential life in sperm alone.
Yet it says that the Constitution is being made to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You cannot change the meaning of a word to fit it to your likings.
-Your changing it yourself. Posterity is the future and a human beings future. Not an unborn child that has no legal documentation. It has no rights until it is born and given a birth certificate.
I believe someone already said this example, but if by some sort of fire or something, all proof of my existence is destroyed, does that mean that I no longer have the right to live? There are millions of people in countries that do not have birth certificates, does that mean they we can just kill them because there is no legal proof they exist as a citizen of their home country?
-No. We don't kill them. BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BORN. Your taking my words to an extreme and making petty arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. |