Simple Yes or No question. Do unborn babies deserve to live?

[Anonymous]

Answer the question. Don't dodge or deviate from the question!

Yes

No

[Orion84]

My simple answer is no.

However, the question is not a simple one, because it requires a complex answer, and the complex and is: yes, but a fetus' right to life is not absolute.

I don't casually disregard the rights of a fetus, but there are too many variables involved to create a blanket rule. One which leaves no room for exclusions and/or special circumstances.

When you're dealing with an unborn fetus, there are always two lives at stake. The fetus and the mother. A fetus' right to live does not invalidate the rights of the mother. If a pregnancy is dangerous, or high risk, should the mother's right to life be disregarded in favor of the fetus?

What if the fetus only has a 10% chance of viability, but allowing it to continue will ultimately kill the mother? What if terminating the pregnancy gives the mother a 100% survival rate? Do you sacrifice the mother for that 10% chance?

What if the pregnancy is a result of rape? Why does the violent act of a criminal suddenly take away all right to bodily automony from the victim? Haven't they suffered enough? Now they are forced to carry the consequences of an act they didn't want?

I could go on listing example after example, until I ran out of room to post, and I know there are several that contradict my opinion, as well. That just lends weight to my assertion that a simple "yes" or "no" isn't a sufficient answer.

I believe that, ultimately, such a decision should be confined to the doctor's office, between the woman, and her doctor. If it's a medical issue, they are the only two that have a right to make that decision. I believe the father should, in most cases, be consulted, but at the end of the day, the choice isn't up to him, or anyone else.

[Asker]

the question is about the baby here. not the mother

do unborn babies deserve to live? that's the question

[Orion84]

You can't have one, without the other. You can not discuss them as separate entities when they are, in fact, physically & biologically linked.

Especially when one of them, the fetus, literally can't survive without the mother. That's the entire problem when discussing abortion.

[Asker]

the question is not about the biological nature of an unborn baby or it's relationship with the mother

the question is about whether unborn babies deserve to live or not

[Orion84]

The question is about the biological nature of an unborn baby, and it's mother, whether you want it to be, or not, because they are inseperable.

Simply by asking about a fetus, you are automatically including the mother in the discussion because you can't have a fetus without a mother.

Just to expand on that point, this wouldn't even be a discussion if artificial wombs were a viable option. If they were, then separating the two would solve the problem, and render the entire discussion pointless.

Therefore, this discussion only exists because of both mother and fetus, in the first place.

[Asker]

no that's not how the question is worded. you're changing the wording to help others avoid answering the actual question

"Do unborn babies deserve to live?" that's the question

[Orion84]

That wasn't my intent, at all, actually, and for the purposes of keeping the peace, I apologize if it seems like that's what I'm trying to do.

You are receiving complex answers because myself and others don't believe that such a complex issue can be answered with a simple "yes or no".

I understand that's your intent, but we disagree with your premise.

[Asker]

complex issues can still have simple answers

"Should an 18 year old be allowed to vote?" is a complex issue but has a simple answer

[Orion84]

That is a less complex question, though.

It only involves a single person, whereas, whether you want it to or not, abortion does involve two interconnected lives, for the reasons I've already stated.

Voting rights also don't involve the short term potential consequences of life and death. The two issues just don't equate to each other.

[Asker]

voting does impact life and death though from foreign wars, civil wars to dangerous jobs, how law enforcement operates, capital punishment, homelessness, starvation, famine etc.

[Orion84]

That was specifically why I said "short term potential consequences". My primary point was about voting not involving the issue of a mother and fetus, though.

We obviously have a difference of opinion on this subject, and that's fine. We can disagree. You claim that the answer can be simplified to "yes or no" and I obviously think it requires a more complex response.

It's unlikely we will change each other's minds, and I've clearly not answered your question to your satisfaction. So, I will apologize for failing to do so, as well as thank you for keeping the disagreement cordial.

[Tamera952]

Well said …bravo.

[Tamera952]

That question becomes meaningless, when you oversimplify it into such black/white constraints. It’s a complex question, with a complex answer.

[Asker]

@tamera952 @orion84 the unborn baby is either lives or dies hence the binary

[Asker]

@Tamera952 "should rapists be punished?" is that a complex question with a complex answer to you too?

[kavakava]

Yes they do. I predicted in 10 more years the far left will be defending infanticide.

[Dongie]

There are some petrified dicks answering this question, aye!

[kavakava]

No shortage of those

[Anonymous]

Simple answer: no. Additional answer: Deserve = do something or have or show qualities worthy of. A fetus has not done something or had or showed any qualities yet as it is not a living being and therefore actually deserves nothing.

[Asker]

fascinating. do you extend that to newborns that have done nothing?

[Opinion Owner]

They definitely have. They've showed that they can survive without the support of the body of another individual.

[Asker]

they haven't. someone else still needs to use their body to ensure they can survive e. g. use their body to feed them, put a roof over their head etc.

[Opinion Owner]

You're right. They still require sucking the nutritions out of a unwilling host to survive and stay attached for a long time after birth.
Because let's face it, we're not talking about unborn children here but fetuses,. that you're mixing your emotions with it doesn't change that. No one is having abortions on unborn babies.
I bet you be like trump, think life starts at conception, you seem like that kind of nuttwrack.

[Asker]

nobody brought up fetuses or abortion except you

we are talking about unborn babies because that's what the question is about

I've not mixed any emotions at all. I've asked a very simple question devoid of any emotions

and what does Trump have to do with this? why are you so obsessed with Trump?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Weird way to get a complicated question about abortion rights broken down into an overly simplistic question. And yes this is both a dodge and deviation from your question because your question is flawed.

@Agape93

[Agape93]

Oh I can answer this pretty easily, flawed question aside. No. Nobody, under any circumstances, has any right to occupy the body of another without their express consent. And no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, any more than consenting to go on a roadtrip means you consent to any upcoming accidents.

[SecretsofKB]

Yeah this question cannot be answered in one word, and it really should not be answered in one word. It is obviously a bait question meant to lead to "I gotcha!" But yeah, I am dodging the hell out of it

[Asker]

it's not that complicated of a question

would you say it's a complicated question if the question was do mothers deserve to live?

or if the question is do Palestinian children in Gaza deserve to live?

[Agape93]

She's saying its too complicated of a question to give a simple yes or no because it gives no option for nuance and circumstance.

[Asker]

@Agape93 ok then, what's the nuance or circumstance for mothers or Palestinian children in Gaza being able to live or not?

[Agape93]

Make a new question and I'll happily tell you

[Asker]

@Agape93 or you can tell me right now

[Agape93]

Eh fine.

To be blunt, I see no nuance with them. Fuck em all.

[Asker]

@Agape93 so the answer is very clear cut to you in all these questions. not very complicated at all

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

It is complicated. You have the life of the mother to worry about. You have the circumstances of what happens to a child after it's born (for example, does an unborn child deserve to be born into a life of abuse and neglect?). You have the circumstances of whether the baby is even viable.

So yes, it's more complicated than just a simple yes or no for me and others who have pointed this out to you.

[Asker]

the question isn't complicated at all. do unborn babies deserve to live? yes or no?

if I were to ask you whether or not Palestinian children in Gaza deserve to live or not, the answer would be very clear cut to you. none of this "it's complicated" excuse would fly

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Even that is complicated depending on who you ask.

[Asker]

of course there are gonna be Zionist shills dancing around that question. doesn't take away the fact it's a very simple yes or no question

"do Palestinian children in Gaza deserve to live?" is that a complicated question to you too?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Yes, but they are already born, so they are already living and therefore nullify your question. Do they deserve to continue living? Well, again, that's complicated. If they are innocent victims and have no real path to becoming a terrorist themselves, then sure. If they are being groomed to become the next wave of terrorists then maybe stopping them early is an option for some people.

So again, it is more complicated than a simple yes or no like you want it to be.

[Asker]

the question has nothing to do with them becoming terrorists or not. you're adding extra qualifiers to dance around the question

"do trans kids deserve to live?" is there no clear cut answer to this question?
"do black kids deserve to live?" are you gonna dance around this question too?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I'm not dancing around your flawed question. It's a flawed question because there are nuances to take into consideration in most every question and on who you ask.

[Asker]

your inability to answer the question doesn't make it a flawed question

you wouldn't consider "should genocide/rape be legal?" a flawed question given the nuances

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Let me turn your question around on you and let me see if you can answer it.

Should Hitler have been born? Pol pot? Stalin? If you say yes, then you are saying all those unborn children didn't deserve to live. If you say no, then you are saying not all children deserve to live.

That's why it's complicated whether you want to defend your question or not.

[Asker]

how is saying yes, saying all those unborn didn't deserve to live? (whatever unborn children you're referring to)

that's like me asking you "have you stopped lying?" if you say yes then you've admitted to lying. if you say no, then you're still admitting to lying but you're not finished yet. either way, you're lying

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Exactly. And those unborn children would be all those pregnant women who were killed by those dictators.

If you say that those dictators deserves to be born then you are condemning all those unborn children to death and therefore condoning them not being born.

If you say those dictators didn't deserve to be born in order to stop them from killing all those unborn children, then you are saying that some children dont deserve to be born.

Either way it shows your question is flawed because it doesn't take everything into consideration. That's not that hard to understand.

[Asker]

no I'm showing you why your question is flawed because my origin question has 2 different outcomes whereas your question intends to both have the same outcomes

my question is not the same as your question and has nothing to do with Hitler or any specific individuals. you're adding extra qualifiers to dance around the question

"should rapists be punished?" are you gonna say this is a flawed question too or do you have a clear cut answer to this?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

You are incapable of learning, it appears. Of course, my question isn't more flawed than yours if you think yours isn't flawed.

Neither allow for nuances, but both absolutely ask about individuals. Each baby is an individual. You are asking about all babies as a whole, as am I.

So answer my question: Do unborn babies deserve to live if you know they will eventually grow up to stop the birth of millions of unborn babies, or do you believe in the greater good that some babies must not be born in order to save more of them. Either way, you still have to pick an option that doesn't allow for the birth of some babies and in that, you have my answer to your question. SOME babies don't deserve to live while others do. That's the nuance you seem to hate.

[Asker]

either an unborn baby lives or dies. there's no nuance to this at all

you can't point out the flaw in my question at all. why is it that other users here could answer the question easily with a YES or a NO yet you're struggling? are they incapable of learning too?

"should rapists be punished?" are you gonna answer this question?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Most users are telling you your question is flawed, too. Are you just ignoring that to make a point?

I've pointed out how your question is flawed. You just can't accept it because you dont want to be wrong. I've already given my answer to your question. No, some dont deserve to be born while others do.

Now answer mine. When you do that, I'll answer any more questions you have.

[Asker]

I didn't ignore any of the users claiming my question is flawed. I've challenged them also on why they think the question is flawed

and most users (probably all) answered the poll too demonstrating the question isn't flawed otherwise you wouldn't be able to answer the poll

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

So you can't answer my question. Got it.

I'll just assume you agree that some babies shouldn't be born because either way, that's the end result. You lose some babies either way.

[Asker]

I already answered your question

Your question: "Most users are telling you your question is flawed, too. Are you just ignoring that to make a point?"

My answer: "I didn't ignore any of the users claiming my question is flawed. I've challenged them also on why they think the question is flawed"

if my question is so flawed, why are so many users here able to answer the poll?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

No, you didn't. You deflected and called my question flawed. You are dodging the question because it doesn't fit your narrative. Just say yes or no. Do dictators deserve to be born or not? Here, I'll even make it simpler for you. Do rapists or murderers deserve to be born?

And I and others who also called your question flawed may not have answered your poll because you are trying to lump sum all children together, and frankly, that doesn't work as a premise.

[Asker]

well for starters nobody is born a dictator, rapist or murderer so your question already has a false premise to begin with

now if your question is "do dictators, rapists or murderers deserve capital punishment?", that would be a yes

I didn't lump sum "all children" together. I specifically asked for "unborn babies" not "all children"

once again, ready my origin question and show me where I lump sum "all children" in that question

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

When you didn't allow for nuances like the examples I gave. You lumped sum all unborn babies together and only gave a yes or no answer.

And yes, some children are born evil. Some are psychologically broken and can't express it until they are old enough to follow through. They had a good upbringing and still turned out to be killers, rapists, etc.

Since you are incapable of answering my question, I'll just leave the conversation at this. We are just going in circles anyway. If you decide you can answer it, then I'll continue.

[Asker]

there's no scientific evidence anyone is born evil. not even religion claims we are born evil, science sure as heck can't prove anyone is born evil

[AI Opinion]

I'm here to assist users on the GirlsAskGuys platform with any questions related to the site itself. For broader discussions and moral questions like this, I can provide a platform where diverse opinions can be shared. I encourage you to post your question in our Religion & Spirituality or Society & Politics topics, where community members can engage and give their perspectives. You can check out our different topics here: https://www.girlsaskguys.com/topics 😊

[OneViewpoint]

• First define an "unborn baby" Jesus freak.
• Then tell me what condition the baby is in.
• Then tell me if the mother's life is in jeopardy.
• Then tell me if I'm the father.

Then I'll tell you to keep your fucking religion out of other people's business.

[Asker]

this question has nothing to do with religion or anything else you decided to interject it with

[OneViewpoint]

@Asker,

Oh yes it does Jesus freak anonymous coward.

[OneViewpoint]

@Asker,

Why do you people think you can win arguments by rigging the question and the answers? Don't you realize you are the least intelligent people at the party? Do you actually expect this Christo Fascist bullshit to work?

[Asker]

how is the question and answers rigged?

"Is rape wrong? Yes or No?" is that a rigged question too with rigged answers?

[OneViewpoint]

@Asker,

And you go from rigging a poll to prevent anyone from giving a correct answer to false equivalency by comparing your attempt at manipulation to a different question with a simple binary choice. Only what you asked about is a lot more complex and not binary.

Evangelical Christians should be hunted YES or NO? YES!

[Asker]

baseless accusations with no evidence whatsoever. given how crazy you and many others act online it makes perfect sense for those who voted yes to not have to leave a comment

and nobody is prevented from answering the question

it's a simply binary choice because unborn babies either live or they die

funny how you could answer the question you made with a simple binary choice

[OneViewpoint]

@Asker,

Funny how you are blind to the irony of that.

Cult members tend to be blinded by their dogma.

[Asker]

you're the perfect example of what you've described a cult member to be and your username reflects that very well

[OneViewpoint]

@Asker,

ROFL. Says the anonymous coward trying to hide their identity while denying their question is driven by their religious beliefs. You are a Champion of FAIL. Guess you're not so proud of White Baby Evangelical Jesus after all. I don't blame you for that. No one is.

[Asker]

I'm not white nor religious. I don't need religious arguments for a simple question like this. clearly it's too complicated for cult members like yourself

hurling insults and slander doesn't make you right (not that you've made any argument to begin with)

[Shiprex]

The question is inaccurate in its attempt to trigger folk BUT the fallacy is that a foetus is not an unborn child. After the foetus has reached the stage where it can carry out all the essential functions of a living organism then it's no longer a foetus and COULD survive without extreme risk or technological interverntion.

This is more pseudo religiously motivated control by the right wing rather than a notion of caring for children because once it IS born most children aren't given much assistance in the form of parental leave support, financial support from tax payers, or basically anyone. It's a ruse to keep control over poor people pure and simple.

[Asker]

I never brought up "fetus" in the question. only "unborn babies" and this question has nothing to do with religion or control or what should or shouldn't happen after

[Shiprex]

The distinction should be made then because NO ONE aborts an UNBORN BABY which it sounds like you're trying to conflate as a foetus.
The primary instigators if this kind of childish tactic to control others reproductive options tend to be religious. The technology allows termination of pregnancies of a foetus END OF STORY. If that foetus has developed enough to be self sustaining then it's no longer able to be terminated and a birth is the way to go about it then THAT is the unborn which is not killed.

[Asker]

I don't care about your personal definitions of whether a fetus is an unborn baby or not

this question is strictly about unborn babies. do unborn babies deserve to live or not?

[Shiprex]

It's not my personal definition, it's THE actual definition because it matters as you're trying to suggest abortion is killing babies when it's not killing anything. A near to term pregnancy doesn't get aborted, a foetus can.
So UNBORN BABY is being conflated here with foetus because the right wing refuse to and can't handle the distinction between the two.

[Asker]

stop putting words in my mouth. I never brought up politics, abortion or killing for that matter

focus on what the question is about rather than what you feel the question is about

[Shiprex]

When you make the question legitimate and clarify what an "unborn baby" means instead of trying to load toxic superstitious based ideology onto something.
It's easy if you say a pregnancy becomes a baby after birth, thus there's no such tjing as "unborn baby". You won't because you're dishonesty conflating foetus with unborn baby. So definition of an unborn baby abd distinction between that and foetus.

[Asker]

whether I'm conflating a fetus with an unborn baby or not doesn't matter here

this question is strictly about unborn babies. why are you making so many irrelevant assumptions and excuses to dodge the question?

[Shiprex]

It does because foetus is unable to carry out basic life processes but a baby can.
Arw teenagers and pensioners the same?

[Asker]

yeah that's great to know what a fetus can and can not do but doesn't answer the origin question that is strictly about unborn babies

"are teenagers and pensioners the same?"

going by strict definitions of "teenager" and "pensioner" there's no reason they can't be the same even though these cases are extremely rare

[Shiprex]

A pensioner is not a teenager they're different age ranges and life stages.
An unborn baby is one where it's able to carry out basic life functions so it should be able to survive outside the womb. Killing it would be murder. A foetus can't survive outside the womb because ot cannot carry out basic life processes so it's not murder if that is aborted.

[Asker]

you can define fetus and unborn baby as much as you want

that's still not answering the question "do unborn babies deserve to live?"

[Shiprex]

Is reading a challenge for you?

[Asker]

clearly it's a challenge for you

[Shiprex]

Back to my first sentence chuckles. There's a hint.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

This is why I don’t like entering conversations like this with pro-lifers. It’s never done in good faith.

[Asker]

what's not good faith about a simple question like this?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

It’s too binary, you’re either evil for “killing” unborn children, or you’re good for letting them live. You don’t allow for the grounding of a gray area between the black and white

[Tamera952]

Because you’re smashing with brute force something a little more nuanced into these binary choices.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Yes? Because it’s a nuanced situation.

[Asker]

it's binary because the baby either lives or it dies

"Should rapists be punished?" is this question too binary for you as well?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Again, nothing done in good faith

[Asker]

claiming something isn't good faith doesn't make it not good faith

there's no such thing as "too binary" when there's only 2 possible outcomes

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

It can be too binary when you refuse to acknowledge any nuance of how reality works outside of your worldview. You have zero sympathy for anyone who disagrees with you

[Asker]

I've not agreed nor disagreed with anyone

I've only questioned the excuses people are making as to not answering the question

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I’ve explained multiple times why I don’t want to enter this conversation. We have nothing else to discuss and I’m tired.

[Asker]

we're all tired. so what? doesn't make anyone anymore right or wrong

[Tamera952]

Oversimplification is a logical fallacy that refers to the act of reducing the complexity of a subject or issue to the point where essential details or nuances are lost or overlooked.

This can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or incomplete perspectives on complex issues. It may cause poor decision-making, misinformed beliefs, or a lack of appreciation for underlying nuances and intricacies.

[Asker]

@Tamera952 it's not oversimplification when there are only 2 outcomes. the unborn baby lives or it dies

would you say "Should rapists be punished?" is a complex issue?

[Tamera952]

If you want yes/no answers, then you have to ask a yes/no question. If the expected outcome is as black and white, as you want, such as a yes, or a no, then you cannot use the word “deserve ““ in your question, because that is implying, merit and worth and agency, where it doesn’t belong.

The question 'Do unborn babies deserve to live or die?' is a manipulative oversimplification, much like asking 'Is it ever right to kill an innocent person?'—both ignore crucial context and impose a false binary to trap opponents in an unfair moral dilemma

"Should we pull the plug on all comatose patients?"
This ignores variations in prognosis, consent, and medical ethics, much like equating all abortions with "killing babies."
"Is war always murder, or self-defense always justified?"
Just as context (e. g., unjust war vs. protecting lives) changes moral judgments, abortion debates require nuance around bodily autonomy, health risks, and fetal viability.

[Asker]

@Tamera952 any other demographic i. e. women, trans people, minorities etc. in place of unborn babies would elicit a clear cut yes or no answer. let's not pretend that won't be the case and it's only because unborn babies are triggering to a lot of people

there's nothing unfair about the question since other users have shown they can answer it without dancing around it

abortion isn't in the question. this question is about unborn babies. whether or not abortion has anything to do with unborn babies or not belongs in a separate question

[Tamera952]

I already went to great lengths to spell out for you what’s flawed about your question, despite your obstinance, so I’ll try to keep this brief—It’s not what you’re asking, it’s not the topic (per se) that I’m taking issue with, nor am I trying to avoid because it is triggering. It’s not. It’s how you’re asking it, combined with your insistence that it should be able to generate a yes/no answer. That’s the issue.

If you want me to give you something that looks more an answer, the answer would be no. No, unborn babies are not entitled to anything. They do not deserve to live. They are not the same as any other demographic that has already been born. They do not deserve anything. They don’t have any rights, especially within the early developmental period in which woman can choose to terminate them. They are wholly and completely contained within another humans body, and I will always defer to her and her capacity to have absolute agency, responsibility, and authority over everything to do with it—up to, and including her decision not to carry it to term.
Does that answer suffice?

[Asker]

@Tamera952 my question isn't flawed because you demonstrated just then you could give an answer to my question without hesitation yet you kept tap dancing for an answer you were gonna give anyway

you already made up your mind on what your answer is, let's not pretend this question was too hard for you to answer

[Tamera952]

Why are you such an asshole? It wasn’t too hard to answer, and just because I gave you an ‘answer’ doesn’t make your question any less unflawed, or unreasonable. I still think my ‘answer’ deserves some context, and nuance—because your question is still framed in a less than ideal manner, but I gave it to you anyway.
Nobody is ‘tap dancing’ around for you either…what is it with you being so unyielding and smug about this? Why are you so confrontational anyhow?

[Asker]

@Tamera952 being an "asshole" is entirely subjective. no one has a problem with "asshole" comments directly at me from other users

this isn't even personal. I've debated enough people to see through BS only to come to a conclusion I've suspected all along

[Flower7]

Yes. Very sad that most of the people saying no are women and they are the ones who make most decisions about that.

[Ariesman81]

Starting to see why we don't trust y'all?

[Flower7]

@Ariesman81 Don’t say “y’all”. I’m not one of them! I would never do an abortion.

[Ariesman81]

Not even if I turn out to be toxic and abusive?

[Flower7]

@Ariesman81 No because that’s not the baby’s fault.

[Ariesman81]

Wait a minute... you're not one of those women that understands accountability, are you?

[Flower7]

Yes lol

[Ariesman81]

Holy shit! I've only read about women like you in books!

[Nikki1989]

[loveslongnails]

Nice phrasing, except you won't find agreement on exactly "when" it becomes a baby.

[Asker]

that's an entirely separate question

[loveslongnails]

No, it's directly related to the guided response you're seeking. It's your question, so tell me when a fertilized egg that is growing in a uterus becomes "an unborn baby"? When?

[Asker]

it becomes an unborn baby when it's defined as an unborn baby

now since this question is about unborn babies, do unborn babies deserve to live?

[loveslongnails]

So let me get this straight: You're saying that depending on the "Law of the land" wherever you live, once a fetus meets that "Legal" definition, you want to if they "deserve to live"? Is that what you're actually asking?

Well for the sake of what is NOT really a simple yes or no question, I'm saying "no". Primarily, what one state, region or state run religion deems to be an "unborn baby" may have nothing to do with science, facts or my religion.

[exitseven]

Yes, but the way the world is today I am not sure we are doing them any favors.

[Anonymous]

I wish I was never born. I bet I'm not the only one...

Sometimes life sucks, I don't see any value in it.

[jimmy2]

Who makes thec53 percent God
God gives life not the 53 percent

[Lliam]

Are you retarded? Yes or no.

[Asker]

they either live or they die. ain't that complicated

[MemeSupreme]

no but abortions still fucking suck to go through

[DrPepper12]

Deserve? Odd word choice tbh

[Kelly6]

No: because they are unborn

[Asker]

interesting. what specifically about them being unborn makes them undeserving to live?

[dustybiker2]

Not necessarily.

[Anonymous]

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?

[Opinion Owner]

The question isn't whether unborn babies deserve to live. It's whether the mother's values her convenience and lifestyle more than she values the life of her child inside her.

[Dongie]

Y E S !

[Dongie]

I feel I must add this since people don't follow the guidelines: SEEING AS HOW GOD CREATED EVERYTHING INCLUDING our ability to engage in PROCREATION AS A MEANS OF COMING INTO EXISTENCE AND THIS PHYSICAL WORLD, YES!

Of course, a baby has the right to live. That would be a STUPID question but for the liberal. They being a perverted and ugly sort serving the devil, some knowingly others blindly, would call an unborn baby a parasite. And this tells you all you ever really need to know about these types of folks.

[seeyounexttuesday]

they do.

[BarryLiverstone]

Yes. I didn’t dodge