That last sentence makes no sense...at all.... No, you wanting babies to be born to suffer for the rest of their lives is cruel....can't weasel out of it, there is no other interpretation, none.
There is no other interpretation unless you consider evolution. At least consider it. I'm not sure if these babies with the Zika virus can affect human evolution (need to know if it is possible for at least one of them to procreate). But the theory of evolution that I learned did not say that every advantageous mutation that was carried on was a walk in the park for the first individual who possessed such mutation. So do you see how your attempts to prevent all suffering (however noble) can actually cause more suffering?
Certainly not. We do want women to have the choice and it's a popular choice. Around 90% of foetuses found to have a chromosomal abnormality are aborted. Which means 10% are not. Now, those women who would want to choose not to abort an abnormal foetus may be under personal pressure to do so from family and friends. Everything possible should be done to make that as difficult as possible. The decision to abort should be freely made.
You did not provide a link even though it was word for word from the 1987 survey I note you still have not provided a link
WTF ? You want others to suffer to suffer so you can observe an experiment in evolution? Did you know you can't live long enough to see the results? Oh, ya, you can live to see AND ENJOY the suffering of these people.....isn't that really all you want? Did you intend to pay the medical bills and upkeep on these kids while you watched them suffer?? I mean most people PAY for their ENTERTAINMENT. YOU: """So do you see how your attempts to prevent all suffering (however noble) can actually cause more suffering?"""" I see how your attempts to force women to give birth to these poor kids causes YOU NO PAIN AT ALL....and you actually mention the word "noble"...
MOD EDIT - Removed Flamebait> This entire sub-discussion was initiated by the following post (post 47 of this thread) with 2 links:
You can't compare fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities to ones who might have been afflicted with a little bit of Zika. Apples and Oranges.
Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would anyone "deliberately infect themselves" on the offchance that they would have a affected baby? Did you not read the OP? They cannot abort these babies - even when there is clear evidence of little or no brain development - they can ONLY abort if there is NO brain development - - - Updated - - - Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would anyone "deliberately infect themselves" on the offchance that they would have a affected baby? Did you not read the OP? They cannot abort these babies - even when there is clear evidence of little or no brain development - they can ONLY abort if there is NO brain development
Yes you can -= Remember what Rubela AKA "German" measles did before vaccination? Babies born blind and deaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubella Zika virus effects http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/zika-virus-basics-36553206 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.15831/full
Should someone be allowed to murder just to resolve some "inconvenience"? No. You should justify your claim that inconvenience is reason enough to kill people.
Not murder and if you were the one on the streets you might think that the choice between starvation and abortion is quite easy and clear
Abortion isn't murder. If you think it is, call 911. I never said inconvenience is a reason to kill people.
What about killing a baby because you don't want your parents to know you had sex? Or because "its not the right time"? Or because you don't want morning sickness? Or any of the other trivial reasons given for 93% of abortions.
Who are YOU to decide what is or is not trivial in someone else's life? ...and it's VERY dishonest to accuse anyone of killing a baby when no baby is involved in an abortion. Why do Anti-Choicers have to be dishonest to attempt to make a point.......it makes any point null and void
So you think killing a baby to hide from her parents the fact a person had sex is not trivial? Your argument is disassociated from reality.
Just shows how much they devalue human life. Claiming killing should be allowed to cover up the embarrassing fact that they had sex.
...and it's VERY dishonest to accuse anyone of killing a baby when no baby is involved in an abortion. Why do Anti-Choicers have to be dishonest to attempt to make a point.... can't they use facts? Do they have any facts??......
If you prefer not to think of it as a baby to help you sleep better at night, that's your prerogative.
Ya, funny how I prefer facts to the overly emotional hyperbole and lies of Anti-Choicers... I sleep fine at night no matter what anyone calls a fetus.....
Facts: • the fetus is a human being • the fetus begins wiggling around at 6 to 7 weeks • by the week number 11, all the organs have already formed. Everything is there.
define "functioning" How is the fetus moving around then? You do realize that by 12 weeks the fetus is bouncing around in there?
But too immature to survive The limit of viability is stalled at 21 weeks because of lack of organ development - and that very much includes the brain You cannot convince me that something the size of a peanut has a fully functioning brain (although it could be comparable to some posters on this forum)
