LogFAQs > #904140453

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The indisputable pro-choice argument
ChainedRedone 06/28/18 4:43:01 PM #42:	KhanJohnny posted... There is a difference between a mother not donating blood to save a child and abortion. The former is an act of omission, while the latter is an overt act. From pro-life prospective, you are essentially saying that because a mother doesn't have to donate blood to save her child, she is equally justified in taking a knife to it. Thats a moot point. Providing for the baby during pregnancy is an overt act. It is actively giving bodily resources to the baby. One could say abortion is, in fact, inaction. During pregnancy a mother is intrinsically giving blood to her child. She can terminate that. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:904140453] in The indisp... [t:76758979]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>There is a difference between a mother not donating blood to save a child and abortion. The former is an act of omission, while the latter is an overt act. From pro-life prospective, you are essentially saying that because a mother doesn't have to donate blood to save her child, she is equally justified in taking a knife to it.</quote> Thats a moot point. Providing for the baby during pregnancy is an overt act. It is actively giving bodily resources to the baby. One could say abortion is, in fact, inaction. During pregnancy a mother is intrinsically giving blood to her child. She can terminate that. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1