Replies

I used to debate liberals on abortion on the time, and this is their "critical thinking".

Seeing as I just discussed murder, it seems fitting to next discuss abortion, as abortion is murder.

He should have stopped while he was ahead.

When you get an abortion, you are killing a living organism, something that had the potential to become a fully-developed human being.

No, you are killing a HUMAN BEING. A potential human being is before conception. I'll address HIS definition of fully developed down further.

I understand the perspective of the pro-life movement.

Clearly not.

However, we kill living things all the time. We chop down trees to build our homes, we kill rodents and insects when they intrude said homes, we kill fish and other animals for sport and for nutrition purposes, and neither microorganism nor mouse is safe in Smith Hall; they are constantly killed for educational and research purposes.

Here he compares an aborn child to a household pest. Liberal devaluation of human life at its finest.

We murder organisms we deem inferior to us without hesitance every day, and I personally believe fetuses fit into this category.

It doesn't matter what you PERSONALLY believe. What matters are the facts.

We do not have emotion for the reproductive gametes before they combine. When a man masturbates, I would be surprised to learn that he mourns the death of his sperm, as they die shortly after ejaculation. However, once a sperm cell combines with an egg and has the potential to become a human, people become very emotional, despite the fact that it is not a person during the first trimester, the time in which abortions are permitted.

1) Not a person in the first trimester, huh? So one day before the second trimester begins, we have a nonperson who then magically turns into a person on the first day of the second trimester, eh?

2) Many of your fellow pro-aborts believe that there isn't a person till birth. What makes your opinion more valid then theirs? Does that mean that you intend upon fighting to ban abortion outside of the first trimester. What? No?

3) Abortions occur through all 9 months of pregnancy in the U.S.

During the first trimester, a fetus has no idea what is happening, as its brain is not developed enough for such advanced forms of awareness, thought and emotion. In the first trimester, a growing fetus cannot possibly understand what life is. It does not understand that it is being deprived of anything when an abortion is taking place. If my parents aborted my birth, I would not have been upset, as I could not have experienced any emotions during those early weeks of life.

It doesn't matter if the child knows. Is it ok for me to shoot someone in the back of the head because they would die instantly and not know?! What about infants? They have no real grasp on the concept of life. Peter Singer says we should be able to kill them up to 6 months. What about the mentally handicapped or those in a coma?

Although it could be argued that I would be missing out on future experiences, I would not have been aware of this deprivation and would therefore not have experienced this deprivation.

Man A is going on vacation to Hawaii tomorrow. He is killed instantly in a deliberate hit and run tonight. He's not aware he's missing his trip. Ok to hit him?

And even if I was aware of what was happening, I do not think I would want to exist if my life was a mistake. I would not want to be a burden on a young woman still in high school. I would not want to limit the freedom of a young couple, one that may not want a child yet and may be financially unstable. And I would certainly not want to be the resulting reward of rape.

We wear condoms and take birth control in the attempt to prevent childbirth. Just because these precautionary measures fail does not mean women should be forced to suffer through carrying a child for nine months and undergo a painful and potentially fatal delivery.

Here he goes with the cliches of "suffering" and "burden". Didn't Obama say something similar if his girls got pregnant. So it's ok to kill one person in order so that another may have a simpler life?

Some that cannot raise a child on their own put their children up for adoption, but why force another to potentially grow up in an orphanage? We are overpopulated enough as it is.

Orphanage? The demand exceeds the availability of infants in this country when it comes to parents waiting to adopt.

Here he goes with overpopulation. I'll even take him on his premise. We're overpopulated. (I don't believe we are.) Is it ok to kill persons already in existence to solve overpopulation?

To create life is a major responsibility; people should not have children unless they believe they can care for their children and make them happy.

Planned Parenthood spiel, "Every child a wanted child". (We'll kill the ones you don't want.) Is the value of a human being based on whether or not a person is wanted and happy?

Life is hard even when one has loving parents with the best intentions. Life is filled with unfulfilled desires, never-ending stress (especially so close to finals) and disappointments. I do not know if I want to be responsible for putting another human being through the hardships that accompany existence.

Here lays the groundwork for euthanasia and assisted suicide, which I'm sure Suckerman, being the good, young liberal he is, believes in.