do mother have moral right to kill her newborn baby?

Siscon2000 said:


because its their property?



lie

sargos7 said:


I don't know what country you are from, but no first world country views human beings as property.

And it's not a lie. Read my whole comment. Foster care. It works.

Siscon2000 said:


human being is not a property ofcourse, but childrens are not really a human beings (untill they are at least 5-7 years old). they are basically still a barely conscious creature that can't survive by itself so it is just an animal at best. even if its biologically a human, but in reality its far from it. so if we consider our pets like dogs and cats as a property then its not a mistake to say a children is womens property as well. because basically it is.

simple as this:

human = person.

fetus =/= person so that means fetus =/= human.

newborn children =/= person so its not a human either.

to be a person you must be mature enough to think as adult (or semi-adult at least) human being. simple logic guys...

xRatatosk said:

That logic is so flawed, what's wrong with you?

Exerorg said:
After participating in and reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion the OP has no moral compass. Arguing's not going to change that, guys.

Siscon2000 said:

I have better compass then you do.

Siscon2000 said:


name all the flaws please.



this topic is not about my "compass" its about human rights. please don't go offtopic.. I can upload picture of my compass in my profile if you are so concerned about that.

xRatatosk said:


You're retarded.

Siscon2000 said:


if you lost argument please don't go into insults. this is very childish. please be more mature, intelligent and most important polite.

xRatatosk said:

I didn't lose an argument, you don't even have one, you're just trying to force stupid shit on people.

Siscon2000 said:


what shit do I forcing on people? I dont force anyone to do anything. I only suggesting to respect womens rights.

xRatatosk said:


That murder of babies is moral and is a right for women. But you shouldn't be taken seriously since you fuck your sister. So I'll stop doing so. And in that regard:

Siscon2000 said:


but I do believe it is the right for women. and what it have to do with my sister? why do you care what I m doing with my sister? its my homes and my sister and I m not going into your homes and not touching your sisters so why are you so angry about that? dont tell me you are jelous or something....

xRatatosk said:

AnarchicSloth said:
No, once again, mothers have no right to kill their children. After it's out of her body, it's no longer biologically reliant on the mother. The only problem is taking care of it. Even if she can't, she has no right to kill it. It's now a human being. Before you start an argument about this, please realize that I did not say the woman is obligated to take care of it, though she should. A fetus is defined as "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal", meaning after childbirth, it's no longer a fetus. Also, the father is still a parent, he has the right to keep his child after birth. The father has no right, however, to force the woman to have a child. Also, HUMANS ARE NOT PROPERTY.

AnarchicSloth said:
No, once again, mothers have no right to kill their children. After it's out of her body, it's no longer biologically reliant on the mother. The only problem is taking care of it. Even if she can't, she has no right to kill it. It's now a human being. Before you start an argument about this, please realize that I did not say the woman is obligated to take care of it, though she should. A fetus is defined as "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal", meaning after childbirth, it's no longer a fetus. Also, the father is still a parent, he has the right to keep his child after birth. The father has no right, however, to force the woman to have a child. Also, HUMANS ARE NOT PROPERTY.

Siscon2000 said:


well if you lost your kidney is it not yours anymore? and if you lost your eye is it not yours anymore? just because something is separated from you it doesn't nesseccerily mean its not yours anymore. you hold it in yourself for 9 monts, you spend a lot of food, energy and moneys/time/effort to make it. so it is made by the body who belongs to you and only you. its your own creation. how can your own flesh that you created can be not yours? who else could have a right onto something like this? it is womens flesh and creation and so she is the only one who owns all the rights of it. so its only her right about what to do with it. and so if its her will to destroy her own creation, then we have no choice but to respect her decision.



also human being is not a property ofcourse, but childrens are not really a human beings (untill they are at least 5-7 years old). they are basically still a barely conscious creature that can't survive by itself so it is just an animal at best. even if its biologically a human, but in reality its minds are far from it. so if we consider our pets like dogs and cats as a property then its not a mistake to say a children is womens property as well. because basically it is.

xRatatosk said:

This is so wrong it's funny.

Siscon2000 said:


well if you lost your kidney is it not yours anymore? and if you lost your eye is it not yours anymore? just because something is separated from you it doesn't nesseccerily mean its not yours anymore. you hold it in yourself for 9 monts, you spend a lot of food, energy and moneys/time/effort to make it. so it is made by the body who belongs to you and only you. its your own creation. how can your own flesh that you created can be not yours? who else could have a right onto something like this? it is womens flesh and creation and so she is the only one who owns all the rights of it. so its only her right about what to do with it. and so if its her will to destroy her own creation, then we have no choice but to respect her decision.



also human being is not a property ofcourse, but childrens are not really a human beings (untill they are at least 5-7 years old). they are basically still a barely conscious creature that can't survive by itself so it is just an animal at best. even if its biologically a human, but in reality its minds are far from it. so if we consider our pets like dogs and cats as a property then its not a mistake to say a children is womens property as well. because basically it is.

xRatatosk said:


This is so wrong it's funny.

Siscon2000 said:


but you have no arguments to cover your opinion.

xRatatosk said:


Cuz other people already covered it multiple times idiot. Learn to read.


And yeah Sloth, this is why I'm not taking him seriously.

Siscon2000 said:


well if you lost your kidney is it not yours anymore? and if you lost your eye is it not yours anymore? just because something is separated from you it doesn't nesseccerily mean its not yours anymore. you hold it in yourself for 9 monts, you spend a lot of food, energy and moneys/time/effort to make it. so it is made by the body who belongs to you and only you. its your own creation. how can your own flesh that you created can be not yours? who else could have a right onto something like this? it is womens flesh and creation and so she is the only one who owns all the rights of it. so its only her right about what to do with it. and so if its her will to destroy her own creation, then we have no choice but to respect her decision.



also human being is not a property ofcourse, but childrens are not really a human beings (untill they are at least 5-7 years old). they are basically still a barely conscious creature that can't survive by itself so it is just an animal at best. even if its biologically a human, but in reality its minds are far from it. so if we consider our pets like dogs and cats as a property then its not a mistake to say a children is womens property as well. because basically it is.

Siscon2000 said:


learn to read? learn to write instead of posting dumb spidermans pictures. go watch spiderman cartoons young boy, you are too young for a serious discussion tread.

xRatatosk said:
shows how low your intelligence is, along with your shit threads.

AnarchicSloth said:
This could be considered a success actually, if the amount of replies are a factor. Though this is because many people tried and failed to enlighten the dumb ass OP

AnarchicSloth said:
This could be considered a success actually, if the amount of replies are a factor. Though this is because many people tried and failed to enlighten the dumb ass OP

Lencurryboy said:
But like before that the "baby" isn't considered alive, it's just a blob that could be a baby in the future.

Siscon2000 said:


this is a lie and just an excuse to kill a baby. so if its ok to kill it inside why would it be wrong to kill it outside? it is the same. abortion or murder whatever you call it, but it is unnecessary evil and must be done for the sake of humans (womens) rights and common sense. it is exclusive matter when killing is ok, just like in war.

Exerorg said:
If it's common sense then why is nearly everyone disagreeing with you?

Siscon2000 said:


because they are brainwashed and have very limited point of view. also poll shows it is far from "everybody disagreeing with" me. just too much young peoples on MAL who can't see things from different perspective.

Siscon2000 said:


this is a lie and just an excuse to kill a baby. so if its ok to kill it inside why would it be wrong to kill it outside? it is the same. abortion or murder whatever you call it, but it is unnecessary evil and must be done for the sake of humans (womens) rights and common sense. it is exclusive matter when killing is ok, just like in war.

xRatatosk said:
Sad.