There is Everything Wrong with Abortion
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227683 Mar 18, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
What is "truth" for you may not be for someone else.
A "truth" for me is that it's wrong for anyone who has had even one drink to drive a car. That's definitely not a truth for very many people. I know why I feel that way. But even telling someone why I do doesn't make it truth for them.
You continue to ignore the fact that a pregnancy involves far more than 9 months. It's a life long commitment. It's not something to take lightly. Having a child should be a decision made with a great deal of forethought and consideration. Not made simply because the condom broke or birth control failed.
Doesn't a child deserve MORE than that? Doesn't every child deserve to be born because his or her parents WANTED them?
You are only focusing on the embryo or the fetus. You are not thinking of a colicky infant, or a two year old with an ear infection who keeps you up all night, or a smart-mouthed six year old or the teenager who is rebelling. It's FAR MORE than you are even looking at.
If a woman knows she cannot be the mother a child deserves, and knows she cannot give the child up for adoption once born, she is making the responsible decision by having an abortion.
You just made a great case for killing granny too. An argument should apply in all situations to be considered a valid argument, so one can assume by your comments that you would also favor killing anybody else that could become a burden to you. And it's a real stretch to say that you are helping the child by killing it, because their future may not live up to your standards. To a mother who hasn't bonded yet with her child, abortion might seems like an easy solution, while parting with her child after it's born would be difficult emotionally. The irony of this is that a mother who won't give the child away because it is too precious will kill that same child.

Anti-abortion views have nothing to do with the comfort of the parents, but are about the basic right to life of every individual no matter how they got there, and regardless of whether the child is one-day-old(post conception), or one-hundred-years-old.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227684 Mar 18, 2013
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no difference between a 12-day-old and a 12-year-old in the fact that both are living, sentient beings. They become children at birth. There is a huge difference between both of them and an embryo, zygote or foetus. If you know of someone "voluntarily end[ing] the life of their child", it is your responsibility to report it to the authorities immediately, for that is murder, pure and simple. No doubt you are aware abortion is not murder under the law? As for your sad parallel with a favourite toy - words fail me: shows how much you think of human life if you make that sort of comparison.
NOTE: The 12-day-old I was referring to was after conception.

I'll assume that because of the fact that abortion is legal you just decided to rub it in a little. You also believe that a fetus lacks the desired sentience to be considered a person, and that it is OK to kill a human being who has the sentience equivalent of a fetus.

Is that right?

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#227685 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made a great case for killing granny too. An argument should apply in all situations to be considered a valid argument, so one can assume by your comments that you would also favor killing anybody else that could become a burden to you. And it's a real stretch to say that you are helping the child by killing it, because their future may not live up to your standards. To a mother who hasn't bonded yet with her child, abortion might seems like an easy solution, while parting with her child after it's born would be difficult emotionally. The irony of this is that a mother who won't give the child away because it is too precious will kill that same child.
Anti-abortion views have nothing to do with the comfort of the parents, but are about the basic right to life of every individual no matter how they got there, and regardless of whether the child is one-day-old(post conception), or one-hundred-years-old.
Yea.......she is so transparent and heartless isn't she?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227686 Mar 18, 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.....
Um, that is comparing apples and tennis balls. No, not even that similar... apples and tennis shoes.

The fact is that many people can and do own assault rifles without ever going off the deep end and murdering other people. One need only look at Switzerland, where the population is required to be in the army upon reaching adulthood, and they get to keep their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifle along with some ammo, as a parting gift from the army. The murder rate in Switzerland is far lower than here in America.

The guns in the society are not the problem, the society the guns are in is the problem. That is why I support comprehensive background checks for every gun sale. Of course, I also support the TRUE meaning of the 2nd Amendment: that I or any other citizen has the full right to bear arms, including those necessary for a well regulated (i.e.: properly equipped!) militia. Yup, the Constitution guarantees me the right to own tanks, howitzers, anti-aircraft missiles, etc, etc, etc.
;)

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#227687 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made a great case for killing granny too. An argument should apply in all situations to be considered a valid argument, so one can assume by your comments that you would also favor killing anybody else that could become a burden to you. And it's a real stretch to say that you are helping the child by killing it, because their future may not live up to your standards. To a mother who hasn't bonded yet with her child, abortion might seems like an easy solution, while parting with her child after it's born would be difficult emotionally. The irony of this is that a mother who won't give the child away because it is too precious will kill that same child.
Anti-abortion views have nothing to do with the comfort of the parents, but are about the basic right to life of every individual no matter how they got there, and regardless of whether the child is one-day-old(post conception), or one-hundred-years-old.
I don't need to read past your first line to say "EEEEHHHHH. WRONG!"

You expect people to have children simply because the ova and sperm met? What kind of reason is that to bring a child into the world?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227688 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made a great case for killing granny too. An argument should apply in all situations to be considered a valid argument, so one can assume by your comments that you would also favor killing anybody else that could become a burden to you. And it's a real stretch to say that you are helping the child by killing it, because their future may not live up to your standards. To a mother who hasn't bonded yet with her child, abortion might seems like an easy solution, while parting with her child after it's born would be difficult emotionally. The irony of this is that a mother who won't give the child away because it is too precious will kill that same child.
Anti-abortion views have nothing to do with the comfort of the parents, but are about the basic right to life of every individual no matter how they got there, and regardless of whether the child is one-day-old(post conception), or one-hundred-years-old.
I gotta ask: is this an application for the job of "womb investigator" once President Rand Paul's Department of Wombland Security is established?

The concepts you are espousing have logical consequences in practice. Are you prepared to consider miscarriage a criminal offense? Who is going to determine whether or not the individual cycle of each woman in the country, has not yielded a fertilized ovum each month (or two...would that menstruating woman whose uterus failed to nurture and gestate these fertilized eggs, then be a serial killer?) Will you be regulating each pregnancy, to assure the fetus is free from 'endangerment' by the woman's behavior? Investigating whether or not she is properly restrained, to avoid contact with organisms which may interfere with her pregnancy?

Should the products of conception be assigned social security numbers? Shall the courts recognize their rights to assemble, speak freely, own a firearm?

Where does it end?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227689 Mar 18, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, that is comparing apples and tennis balls. No, not even that similar... apples and tennis shoes.
The fact is that many people can and do own assault rifles without ever going off the deep end and murdering other people. One need only look at Switzerland, where the population is required to be in the army upon reaching adulthood, and they get to keep their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifle along with some ammo, as a parting gift from the army. The murder rate in Switzerland is far lower than here in America.
The guns in the society are not the problem, the society the guns are in is the problem. That is why I support comprehensive background checks for every gun sale. Of course, I also support the TRUE meaning of the 2nd Amendment: that I or any other citizen has the full right to bear arms, including those necessary for a well regulated (i.e.: properly equipped!) militia. Yup, the Constitution guarantees me the right to own tanks, howitzers, anti-aircraft missiles, etc, etc, etc.
;)
Just for the record, I am in favor of personal liberties, whether such concept entails the ownership of firearms, or the ownership of any given uterus.

I happen to be the owner of one uterus, and several firearms.

Carry on.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227690 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is there any chance that the mother can survive if the fetus is aborted? Then morality REQUIRES that the fetus be aborted. A potential life NEVER outweighs a realized life.

I read of a case where the mother of two existing children had an illness that could have been treated, but would prove fatal to the fetus if she did. She and her husband decided that she would commit suicide so that the fetus could gestate to term. Soon after giving birth, she died leaving her husband alone with three children, one a newborn.

I consider her a disgusting mother, and neither of them fit to be parents. The choice they made was HIGHLY immoral and based on purely selfish "religious" motives.
LightForce wrote:
In your view how can you in ANY situation ever save the life of a “non-person” over the life of a “person”?
Simple: is the mother pretty much guaranteed to die, either way? Then save the fetus. Any other case, it is just a wad of goo, and is nowhere near equal in value to that of a real live human being.
LightForce wrote:
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?
I have already said that the soul enters at birth. And the soul can be separated from the body, we call that "death".
LightForce wrote:
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.
1) From the point of view from my religion, the soul enters the body as a way to learn. Exiting the body ends any possibility for growth and learning.

2) The Bible supports my point on this, that only after the soul enters the body does the body have full worth. Heck, in the Bible, a kid less than 8 days old isn't even counted as a person yet...
LightForce wrote:
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.
I think that I just did...
LightForce wrote:
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.
No, it is not just the soul, or just the body, but the UNION of body and soul that has importance. Either alone is, for this discussion, effectively worthless.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227691 Mar 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Just for the record, I am in favor of personal liberties, whether such concept entails the ownership of firearms, or the ownership of any given uterus.
I happen to be the owner of one uterus, and several firearms.
Carry on.
I have no uterus of my own, although I did borrow one for a while, and I own far fewer guns than I would like...(But I've got a nifty black powder pistol!)

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227692 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
There is no OBJECTIVE standard that proves any reason to deny abortion. Since it IS an objective fact that the majority of fertilized eggs will never survive to reach live birth, any purely objective standard MUST be impartial with regards to both natural (or spontaneous) and artificial abortions.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227693 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
NOTE: The 12-day-old I was referring to was after conception.
I'll assume that because of the fact that abortion is legal you just decided to rub it in a little. You also believe that a fetus lacks the desired sentience to be considered a person, and that it is OK to kill a human being who has the sentience equivalent of a fetus.
Is that right?
If a human being had the sentience of a 12 day old fetus, then it would indeed be moral to euthanize them, a blessing for all concerned.
USG

Saint Louis, MO

#227694 Mar 18, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not entirely true. There is a passage in Exodus that talks about men striving and causing a woman to abort her fetus. If the WOMAN is harmed, then it calls for an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and life for a life. If the only harm is the aborted fetus, then the husband can take them to court and demand a few shekels for the lost potential and the matter is ended.
This to me isn't abortion, but none the less, it doesn't treat a pregnancy the same as a person.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227695 Mar 18, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no uterus of my own, although I did borrow one for a while, and I own far fewer guns than I would like...(But I've got a nifty black powder pistol!)
I won't enumerate or categorize my various weapons here....but black powder pistols are very nice. I would like to have one, if only for historical value.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#227696 Mar 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Indeed. These people really don't want to face up to the correlation between birth and violence...heck, Freakonomics had a whole chapter on this...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227697 Mar 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I won't enumerate or categorize my various weapons here....but black powder pistols are very nice. I would like to have one, if only for historical value.
Mine is a cheep reproduction, so not much historical value, except for when I was engaged in historical recreation at some of the Ren Faires around here. Then it had value as a teaching tool.:)

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#227698 Mar 18, 2013
USG wrote:
<quoted text>
This to me isn't abortion, but none the less, it doesn't treat a pregnancy the same as a person.
What is abortion if not an artificial method of terminating a pregnancy? That is exactly what is described in Exodus.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#227699 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And you are ignoring the fact that there are several distinct differences between being a live sentient being and a cluster of newly formed cells that ARE a part of my body. There is no such thing as a preborn child. There is a fetus and then there is a child. What was expelled from my uterus was not a child. I should know because I've seen children. I know what they look like. What came out of my uterus was not a child, it was barely a fetus. And your last statement is impossible. You could say the same that it never had the choice to be evil or not evil, so that makes it evil. What an idiotic thing to say...lol.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Columbus, OH

#227700 Mar 18, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It becomes a person when its no longer in my body. Period. You can drone on and on all you want about this issue, but it won't be outlawed. Abortion has always happened and will always happen until the end of mankind. The government will never overturn Roe v. Wade because they understand that in doing so, more harm than good would come of that decision. For the very same reason that the 2nd amendment will never be repealed despite the loss of life. You're very naive to believe otherwise.

I'm sorry, but if I become pregnant and I decide to have another abortion for whatever reason I choose to, I will. Actually, I'm not sorry because I am the only one capable of making the best decision for me. I do not regret any decisions I've made in the past and I'm glad I was legally able to obtain a safe end to my unwanted pregnancy.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#227701 Mar 18, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are ignoring the fact that there are several distinct differences between being a live sentient being and a cluster of newly formed cells that ARE a part of my body. There is no such thing as a preborn child. There is a fetus and then there is a child. What was expelled from my uterus was not a child. I should know because I've seen children. I know what they look like. What came out of my uterus was not a child, it was barely a fetus. And your last statement is impossible. You could say the same that it never had the choice to be evil or not evil, so that makes it evil. What an idiotic thing to say...lol.
They've never been able to answer any question as to how a fetus is exactly the same as a newborn. Let's try again and see if they can claim that this fetus:

http://www.ivanstalio.com/immagini/Illustrazi...

Possesses the same level of sentiency as this newborn baby:

http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/baby/_more200...

They can't, because the potential of a human being is not the same as this potential being realised. I refuse to equate my own children as clumps of cells because they've already developed past that into CHILDREN.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#227702 Mar 18, 2013
Do you plan to abort your unborn child?? If you go to the clinic,REMEMBER THIS: That POOR EXCUSE FOR A DOCTOR isn't the only one WATCHING.....:The Holy Spirit and His Son,the Lord Jesus Christ,will be there WATCHING as well.:(

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 21 min Clearwater 110,954
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 36 min Retribution 303
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 57 min Tony 6,234
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr PadMark 675,944
Apr 30 President Trump: "News Media Twists Fac... 4 hr Wtf 1
News Trump invites Philippines Duterteto Washington,... 6 hr discocrisco 1
News AP Explains: Can chronic meth use lead to psych... 6 hr discocrisco 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 hr AussieBobby 286,315
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 hr Devil number 666 982,120
More from around the web