There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#227662 Mar 15, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologize to everyone for posting that story. I didn't follow through and research it more carefully. Moon, thanks for being far more thorough that I was.
Sorry I got so emotional, but that shit hits home for me.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227663 Mar 15, 2013
Candice wrote:
She loves aborting babies.
And you love the idea of forced gestation.

See how that works?

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#227664 Mar 16, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry I got so emotional, but that shit hits home for me.
No need to apologize. I understand :)
Doctor REALITY

United States

#227665 Mar 16, 2013
ABORTION is MURDER!!!! Are you someone who just kinda''decided' that you only wanted SEX and not a baby when you were FORNICATING with your boyfriend,or you just simply don't want to responsibility of a baby??!! Then I want you to remember THIS,if you walk through those abortion clinic doors!: The Holy Spirit of God,and His Son,the Lord Jesus Christ,who gave His life for YOU at the Holy Cross of Calvary,will be WATCHING YOU LET THAT POOR EXCUSE FOR A DOCTOR 'M-U-R-D-E-R' THAT DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING DEVELOPING IN YOUR WOMB!!! You REMEMBER that,GIRLFRIEND!!!!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#227666 Mar 16, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
ABORTION is MURDER!!!! Are you someone who just kinda''decided' that you only wanted SEX and not a baby when you were FORNICATING with your boyfriend,or you just simply don't want to responsibility of a baby??!! Then I want you to remember THIS,if you walk through those abortion clinic doors!: The Holy Spirit of God,and His Son,the Lord Jesus Christ,who gave His life for YOU at the Holy Cross of Calvary,will be WATCHING YOU LET THAT POOR EXCUSE FOR A DOCTOR 'M-U-R-D-E-R' THAT DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING DEVELOPING IN YOUR WOMB!!! You REMEMBER that,GIRLFRIEND!!!!
Somebody missed their dose of crazy pills. I have to admit this is one of the funnier posts I've seen in a while.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227667 Mar 16, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody missed their dose of crazy pills. I have to admit this is one of the funnier posts I've seen in a while.
The fact that he assumes MY womb, and what I decide regarding what is in it, are any of his business, is hilarious.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227669 Mar 16, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
ABORTION is MURDER!!!! Are you someone who just kinda''decided' that you only wanted SEX and not a baby when you were FORNICATING with your boyfriend,or you just simply don't want to responsibility of a baby??!! Then I want you to remember THIS,if you walk through those abortion clinic doors!: The Holy Spirit of God,and His Son,the Lord Jesus Christ,who gave His life for YOU at the Holy Cross of Calvary,will be WATCHING YOU LET THAT POOR EXCUSE FOR A DOCTOR 'M-U-R-D-E-R' THAT DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING DEVELOPING IN YOUR WOMB!!! You REMEMBER that,GIRLFRIEND!!!!
Not everyone believes your religious tripe, and those of us who don't, are not obliged to direct our lives according to your delusions.

I want you to remember THIS: My womb, and its contents, or the lack thereof, ARE NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

If you disagree with abortion, you are free to never have one.
Next...
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227670 Mar 16, 2013
Liam R wrote:
A response in three parts...
<quoted text>
That IS a good definition of morality, and one that I am fine with. But it has nothing to do with morality through the ages. Once upon a time, it was considered highly "moral" to murder those who held a different faith - even if that faith was just a slightly different sect of xianity. Trivial differences in dogma were considered enough to burn people at the stake, and the majority view was that it was highly moral to do this.
Now, we can look back as say that we are SOOOO much more moral that this, but what will future generations say about us?
(See this for a discussion of stages of morality development:
http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.j... )
Is burning people at the stake properly moral? Only under stage 1, and only if the concept of collective Divine punishment for tolerating heretics is true.
But what about other ancient practices? Go far enough back, and an infant was not given a name for a week, for the simple reason that it was not considered to be a living person before that. The risk of infant death was simply too high to do otherwise. IS that defensible as a modern practice? I would say that our medical care is good enough that it is unlikely that an infant will die unless there were discernible problems right from the start.
Is it moral to kill prisoners of war out of hand? Not currently, but go back, and the logistics problems become insurmountable to keep them alive - a quick, clean death becomes the only moral option.
And what if the Aztecs were right? What if the only thing that keeps the Sun rising was the pulling out of the still beating hearts of the captives taken, and the only thing that is keeping us alive is that they killed more in a day than they needed for a year? What happens to us when that back log of sacrifices runs out? Is it more moral to give up one person per day to a bloody sacrifice than it would be to condemn every living thing on Earth to a cold death?
Our world today is probably just as immoral a world, if not more, as it was at any time in history. It seems that there is a constant battle against injustices being done against the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable. What causes all of this injustice towards one another? The link that you provided has a lot of clues to that. Maybe the concepts of morality, or justice are a thought process that's triggered by acts of immorality or injustice, and therefore maintains somewhat of a balance of good and evil. Why was burning people at the stake tolerated by so many people? This seems very similar to the persecution of Jews, Christians and Muslims against each other. Much of it had to do with the attempt of those in power to maintain control. If you believe in A, and I believe in B, then we are divided and others can choose to follow you or me, but if there is only A to choose from, then everybody must follow your belief. So in their attempt to maintain control, they might stop any opposition to their set of beliefs. In that way they would not be divided and eventually be defeated as a result. There is a problem though with asserting that these immoralities were based on the general moral views at that time. I would say that it resulted more out of the self-interest of the power structures that existed at that time, and the general LACK of certain morals, or the unwillingness or inability of others to confront those that were in power. There is still the problems you bring up of ignorance(Aztec example), and self-defense(prisoner example). The lack of morality in the power structure played a big role in the Aztec example, but these are not examples of “positive”, but of “negative morality”.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227671 Mar 16, 2013
Liam R wrote:
A response in three parts
Part 2
<quoted text>
I never condone the killing of children, innocent or otherwise. Never, under any circumstances. Do try to remember that this discussion is not about killing children, we are here to discuss abortion.
You might what to go back and reread my post, I was pointing out that the Bible is not always a good guide for determining a moral course of action.
Can we agree that self defense is always permitted? Of course, we need to limit it to legitimate self defense and not some whack-job's delusions about the police and black helicopters, and secret U.N. mind control rays...
An abortion does kill a human being/person. See the next response for more details.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227672 Mar 16, 2013
Liam R wrote:
Part 3
<quoted text>
Very silly. Of COURSE the chance of survival affects moral decisions. Given tow persons and the chance to safe only one, the most moral choice is to save the one with the best chance of survival. Emotion may cloud that judgment...
I have made no attempt to disguise that I approach this from a religious perspective. I believe that all humans have a soul, separate from the physical body. As such, it merely becomes a question of determining WHEN the soul enters the body, and it is ludicrous to think that it happens any time before birth. As such, prior to birth, it is not a person, it is a wad of goo and a potential person.
When the choice becomes one or the other, it should stand to reason that you would usually – except in the case of self-defense of self or others, choose the one with the best prospect for survival, but what if the unborn child has the best chance of surviving. Do you say that the child is irrelevant because it is not a person? Under your basis, if it is an imminent choice where the unborn child would live and the mother has almost no chance to survive, you would still have to let the child die because it cannot even be considered. In your view how can you in ANY situation ever save the life of a “non-person” over the life of a “person”? Before you respond, this brings up the point of the importance of ones potential, or future life. We could discuss the importance of the potential life of a human being, but since it's such a huge topic, I'll leave it alone for now.

Regarding the soul, does a human being create a new soul during it's development, or does the soul, already existing from another source, enter the body upon exit of the womb? If you say it is upon exit of the womb, I would ask you if once united after birth, do the body and the soul become one inseparable entity? If they do become one inseparable entity then it's somewhat reasonable to at least suggest that the physicality of a human being becomes more valuable after birth. But if they are two separate entities, we have to also ask if the physical body has any value AFTER birth either, because if what makes a human being valuable is the soul, and that soul does not die when the body dies, then the physical life of an adult would have the moral value equivalent to that of any physical human being whether born, or preborn, and is equally as expendable as an unborn baby. I don't think that you can answer these questions and still make a reasonable argument that the life of an unborn child is not important. You could still say that the soul is what makes the body an important entity and that until that phenomenon or relationship occurs, a life is not important. But still you're left with the problem of the physical body, in not having a soul, would be only a TEMPORARY state of unconsciousness.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#227673 Mar 16, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
An abortion does kill a human being/person. See the next response for more details.
What if it does? Why should a woman be forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her will?

The rights of the born sentient human being must take precedence over that which cannot possibly survive outside her uterus.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#227674 Mar 16, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
What if it does? Why should a woman be forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her will?
The rights of the born sentient human being must take precedence over that which cannot possibly survive outside her uterus.
Apparently they think they own all uteri world wide....

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227675 Mar 16, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently they think they own all uteri world wide....
They'd certainly like to.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#227676 Mar 16, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>They'd certainly like to.
I'd like to see them TRY and put a padlock on some lady's crotch. Then they go on and whine about property rights.

And their constant blathering about Jeebus. Whatever happened to the fact that most people are NOT comfortable with discussing their faith that way, and they go on chastising people about this? Yeesh.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227677 Mar 16, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to see them TRY and put a padlock on some lady's crotch. Then they go on and whine about property rights.
And their constant blathering about Jeebus. Whatever happened to the fact that most people are NOT comfortable with discussing their faith that way, and they go on chastising people about this? Yeesh.
My personal favorites are the ones who scream "Abortion is murder!" out of one side of their mouths, and "Stay away from my right to own assault rifles!!" out of the other side.....
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#227678 Mar 16, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>My personal favorites are the ones who scream "Abortion is murder!" out of one side of their mouths, and "Stay away from my right to own assault rifles!!" out of the other side.....
Exactly the point,'cause apparently some sick [email protected] with a rifle is less deadly that a pregnant sixteen year old...

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227679 Mar 18, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly the point,'cause apparently some sick [email protected] with a rifle is less deadly that a pregnant sixteen year old...
Certainly less threatening to someone whose sixteen year old son might never know the joy of carrying an assault rifle into a crowded kindergarten....and whose sixteen year old daughter has been sewn shut since birth.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227680 Mar 18, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
For starters, all the people you mentioned had one thing in common - they were born. Anything in my body is not born. It is a part of my body. It was not a child. It was a fetus, at best. And it doesn't have the ability to be innocent or not innocent.
Why do we accept abortion? Because it isn't killing of children. It's the termination of a pregnancy that would ultimately lead to the production of a child.
Remember that a false premise results in a false conclusion.

It IS a living, real person. You are arbitrarily focusing here on the physical phenomenon of being born to differentiate the importance of you and a preborn child. It's just as easy to say that we were all conceived as it is to say that we were all born. In your efforts to remain oblivious, you are narrowing the field of scope. Again you make the WRONG statement that it is a part of your body. If you widen your scope you will see that the preborn child is not a part of your body. It may be in your body, but it is not a part of it. And because it never had a choice to be innocent or not innocent, that makes it by it's very nature innocent.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227681 Mar 18, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
See previous statement. Until you can prove that a 6-week-old fetus is an actual person, you have no argument. Comparing abortion to the enslavement and murder of born, live, breathing, thinking, feeling sentient beings is a stretch.
And again - morality is not defined by you or me. Abortion is not immoral. In fact, in many cases, I would say it is VERY moral.
At what point does a fetus become a person?

It would take the same criteria to prove that a preborn child is a “person” as it would take to prove that you are a “person”, so that means if you are a “person”, then a preborn child is a “person” also, and vise versa. In other words in order to prove that you are a person, you would have to inadvertently also be proving that a preborn child is a person too. The point is that you can't prove anybody is a person. Likewise if you were to prove that one is not a person, by the very nature of it you would also be proving that the other is not a person too. You can't logically say that you are any more of a person than a fetus is, all you can really do is to point at your physical differences. Even trying to say that the act of breathing makes one a person, does not prove that a fetus is not a person too. All it does is point to the fact that after birth, people will breath as we know it. If you say that only those who are sentient beings are people, then I could say that if a fetus is not sentient as we know it, it's only the temporary prenatal condition of all people as we know it. Consider the rights that adults have who are temporarily, or even permanently unconscious for various reasons. The mere fact that they are existing human beings makes them people with the same inherent right to live and to have a future as anybody else. The irony of it is that you may be choosing your own eventual fate when you say that it's OK to kill certain categories of people, because you don't realize that they are really people. While you are looking at our differences to make your verdict, I'm looking at our similarities.

Although you try to ignore the moral issues of abortion, the best that we can do is to use objective reasoning and moral standards to try and reach an impartial and just conclusion, and not just what works for you. There is enough evidence now to conclude that abortion does kill a real live separate person, and I'm sorry, but it's only a matter of time before it goes back to the Supreme Court to find that every human being, no matter how insignificant they may seem to some, has an inherent right to life.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227682 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Our world today is probably just as immoral a world, if not more, as it was at any time in history. It seems that there is a constant battle against injustices being done against the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable. What causes all of this injustice towards one another? The link that you provided has a lot of clues to that. Maybe the concepts of morality, or justice are a thought process that's triggered by acts of immorality or injustice, and therefore maintains somewhat of a balance of good and evil. Why was burning people at the stake tolerated by so many people? This seems very similar to the persecution of Jews, Christians and Muslims against each other. Much of it had to do with the attempt of those in power to maintain control. If you believe in A, and I believe in B, then we are divided and others can choose to follow you or me, but if there is only A to choose from, then everybody must follow your belief. So in their attempt to maintain control, they might stop any opposition to their set of beliefs. In that way they would not be divided and eventually be defeated as a result. There is a problem though with asserting that these immoralities were based on the general moral views at that time. I would say that it resulted more out of the self-interest of the power structures that existed at that time, and the general LACK of certain morals, or the unwillingness or inability of others to confront those that were in power. There is still the problems you bring up of ignorance(Aztec example), and self-defense(prisoner example). The lack of morality in the power structure played a big role in the Aztec example, but these are not examples of “positive”, but of “negative morality”.
Why do you call the Aztec example ignorance? They had just as much evidence to support their beliefs as you have to support yours.

And going back into European history and the people burned at the stake for not worshiping the locally defined orthodoxy...

In that time in history, it was commonly believed that God would smite entire communities or even countries if there were people not worshiping in the "proper" way. Yes, it is easy to give into cynicism and simply claim that it was done to maintain power, but that denies the possibility of "true believers" doing what they thought was right, just, and moral. Was Torquemada just a sadistic bastard looking for any excuse to torture and kill? Or was he a man driven to extremes in his efforts to protect church and country from Evil, while doing his best to save the souls of those deluded enough to err and stray from the "One True Path".

Sure, it is easy now for us to say that xianity is a false religion, so anyone that killed to preserve it was horribly wrong and evil. But the fact remains that Torquemada though that he was doing the best possible thing for those he tortured, since if he could get them to confess and recant their errors, and then immediately kill them so they could not backslide, they would still manage to get into Heaven. Thus, he was keeping them out of an eternity of Hell for the mere price of extreme agony for a few hours or days.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 min onemale 286,523
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min Star Wars 16,790
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Buck Crick 983,134
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 683,861
Chinese are dishonest, greedy and cold-blooded. (Jan '14) 24 min Peter Ross 44
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 55 min lil whispers 619,699
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 58 min Mad US Veteran 25
More from around the web