Abortion

I wonder if you named yourself Mister so people would feel like a kid talking to you. Smart move :) New Arguments: Ironic that the very face of abortion the woman who was in the case has since flipped. We see this all the time that women when they get older decide that babies are real and actually many women have depression issues about past aborted babies. [5][6]. Also interesting that so many women change their mind after they see an ultra sound apparently they agree with me that a little fetus shows human attributes and thus deserve human rights. [7]. Rebuttals: I like Mister's arguments that "Many, many other factors are involved when making decisions, when determining whether or not something is good or bad" and in almost every case in the world this is a good attitude to have and I wish more people would think like this. However when you talk about issues in Human Rights the only thing to consider is are they Human (hence the word human rights). The gay community was a great example of putting their whole argument on human rights and it worked very well and people feel stupid arguing against it. Ironically those same liberals turn and say well let's define Human rights and start to explain and say we need to go deeper, examine all the facts, etc when it comes to abortion that is very hypocritical in my eyes. And I find it funny when people do that because I have seen in debates about gay marriage whenever people say well we need to go deeper the pro gay marriage group will always laugh and say it's all about human rights so try to stay consistent here. It boils down to this are babies in the womb humans? By definition they clearly are. [1]. Here is why pro-choice people just don't make any sense. Like this debate Mister is saying before 24 weeks a baby is not a human and therefor has no rights. Many pro-choicers have the same opinion it's a week around there somewhere. I ask anyone to read this page and ask themselves what is so significant about 24 weeks (or any other week) that it all of the sudden makes them a human being? [2]. Are you saying that a little weight gain, the baby is a little taller, the taste buds are fully developed, and basically things continue to develop. So all that happens is she continues to develop the only significant event that happens is her taste buds finish(they have been developing for weeks). So how does her taste buds finishing all of the sudden turn her into a baby that now has human rights? I mean I truly fail to see any logical argument there that supports at 24 weeks officially because of taste buds it is given human rights. That is the problem with this argument if you look at the development of a baby it is so slow it's impossible to find a hard cut off. But you are forced to because you can't say we can abort 36 week babies because that is blatantly wrong but if you work your way back their is really no significant development week by week to warrant a hard cut off date. This is because from it's inception a little fetus has human attributes and SHOULD therefore be classified as a human. Once classified as a Human than they are awarded human rights which is rights to life and not to have their life ended. If the cut off is 24 weeks does that mean at 23 week 6 days 23 hours and 59 minutes its ok to abort a baby but the very next minute it has human rights? [3] How the heck does that make any logical sense in any argument. what happens in that minute that makes it all of the sudden human? Does Mister consider taste buds to be that important to the Human body? That's the problem if you make these cut offs there is a point where 1 minute this is just a fetus who is a nobody and the next minute they are a human with rights? That doesn't even sound right. There is no reasonable explanation to justify why one minute a fetus is not a human and the next they aren't.[4] I will address over-population later if you really want but my arguments last time are solid. I lived and visited 4 different countries in Latin America and since my father was an Ag Economists I toured dozens of farms and ranches and i can tell you they are incredibly inefficient and we are no where near max capacity. Not to mention all the land used for wine, beer, tobacco could easily be turned into farm land. China and India have the same problem. This honestly isn't even a discussion. If you want to know more and get sources message me and we can talk there. If the world had 25 billion people that is where you START to worry. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.babycentre.co.uk... [3] http://www.glennbeck.com... [4] http://www.lifenews.com... [5] http://www.lifenews.com... [6] http://www.lifenews.com... [7] http://www.politifact.com...