Do Women Who Have Killed, Claim Life Does Not Begin At

[JW Frogen]

Conception because they are unable to admit to themselves the gravity of the act they chose?

Because they want to kill with conscience?

I do not think any woman who simply cannot front up and let the new life in them should be forced to act on biological logic. If they can not see through what they began and it will damage their life then there is some ethical argument for mental self preservation.

But abortion as birth control? A notion that defines life to a definition of personal, cynical convenience?

Still, the pro choice people want an arbitrary definition of when life begins, which means when ever we can make it legal to kill it.

So that there is no biological definition, but a definition based on when we can make ourselves feel better about the grave choice of killing.

This kills any honesty, dignity or justice in their argument.

Some times killing is necessary, but if you have not the honesty or gravity of soul to admit you are killing, if you need to redefine life and pretend you are not killing, what really, is the value of your human life?

Even more strange, this seems to be even a stronger instinct of Leftist, pacifist women.

They will define away the nature of the life within them but protest the killing of life they are not viscerally a part of.

Revealing the egocentric (and some would argue, homicidal-hypocritical) nature of this form of social politics.

[Aussie]

Okay, read that Frogen. Quit the smart arse language and dumb it down for me.

Please.

[JW Frogen]

Women who claim life does not begin at conception want their killing nice and easy.

[JW Frogen]

Right Kanki?

[Aussie]

Women who claim life does not begin at conception want their killing nice and easy.

So, you could have simply said you were anti abortion...absolute.

[JW Frogen]

I do not think any woman who simply cannot front up and let the new life in them should be forced to act on biological logic. If they can not see through what they began and it will damage their life then there is some ethical argument for mental self preservation.

No, actually, in the first post I said I am for the right of a woman to kill.

As long as she can have the dignity and honesty to admit that is what she is doing.

[Aussie]

So, you would have her acknowledge that she is actually killing what........?

............and here we go 'round and 'round and 'round................

.............the circle that is the abortion debate.

[JW Frogen]

So, you would have her acknowledge that she is actually killing what........?

A life.

A life she helped create.

Her killing may be justified, but she is killing a life, not a political or personal convenience.

[Aussie]

I'll play.....for a while Frogen. We have been here a thousand times.

What if she told the horny bastard to get of her, just before he blew his load. Is she guilty of attempted killing?

[JW Frogen]

Guilt is a legal question. Abortion is legal so no, she is not guilty.

Did she kill?

Yes.

Should she deney she killed, not feel the gravity of that decision rather than pretend she is just have a tooth out?

No.

Some killing is necessary, but all killing demands human gravity. That is if one wants to remain human.