There is Everything Wrong with Abortion
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228792 Apr 7, 2013
Look, you maniacs.

Abortion is going to happen.

Too bad.

Humans are killers, period.

We need to accept it.

Abortions will continue any way they can.

Arguing is pointless.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228793 Apr 7, 2013
Abortion is one way the homosapien culls its population.

It's gruesome, but it's reality.

It's all about resources.

Overpopulation and overcrowding will cause the same result as abortion ANYWAY - death.

You will die either way.

Stop arguing about abortion. Arguing is doing nothing to stop it.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228794 Apr 7, 2013
At least all these aborted fetuses don't have to live in this f*cked up world where they won't have to hear people call them welfare leeches.

Abortion has its benifits.

1. The world is less crowded.

2. Lower potential for welfare leeches, criminals and psychos to be born.

3. Resources go farther as there are fewer people using them and fighting over them.

Abortion is going to happen whether some of you like it or not.

Abortion is part of who we are as an animal species. We are like rats when we get too crowded - if we don't kill proactively we will kill retroactively.

Death happens anyway, so why the big cry about abortion?

At least the babies won't live only to get blown up in a nuclear holocaust, anyway.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228795 Apr 7, 2013
Abortion.

Will.

Continue.

To.

Happen.

Arguing.

Will.

Never.

Stop it.
Sharkey

Sparks, NV

#228796 Apr 7, 2013
No need to really worry about abortion.

The world is going into nuclear war so we're all going to die, anyway.

In the face of nuclear war, abortion is a moot point.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228797 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dead child would likely disagree. If dead children could talk.
It must suck being you. Alone and full of misguided rage that you feel the need to take it out on a woman who had to make such a decision. You're special breed of "bad."

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228798 Apr 7, 2013
Grunt56 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know" much.
Except, of course, that you selfishly killed your child. Pretty hard to justify that.
Yup. That's what I did. Writing you from prison for killing my child. Idiot.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228799 Apr 7, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I'm one of the three percent.
I didn't find it at all convenient.
I found it terrifying, painful, and expensive.
And I find you utterly repugnant.
This guy is filth. Absolute filth. Probably why his wife took his kids and ran away from him.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228800 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it outside the womb? Then yes.
LightForce, you should give your friend Grunt a tip or two about how to participate in a debate. At least you have something to say.
I bet you might even answer my question.
If your wife was pregnant and contracted a life-threatening disease of which she will certainly die if she does not have an abortion, what do you choose to do? How would you handle that situation? There's no wrong or right answer I'm looking for. Just an answer.
To your question, this would be an emotional decision based on a current relationship with someone who is presumably loved very much, and with the prospect of losing that person. In that situation where we know for certain that there is no chance at all for her to survive without the abortion, if there is any chance at all for her to live, then I would want her to have the abortion. If she has almost no chance of surviving even with the abortion, it would be a very difficult decision, because you risk losing both of them. Then again, if there is any possible chance that she would survive without having the abortion, you could be killing the child unnecessarily. In this last scenario the decision would be based on the level of your morality, in whether you would risk your life to save another. I myself would, but I wouldn’t be able to make that decision for my wife, so if I was forced to make the decision for her I would have to favor her life. There are a lot of other possible hypothetical scenarios that might occur, and most of the choices that we make would be based on our level of morality, but others would be not much different than tossing a coin to decide. Looking at it objectively, both lives have great inherent value, and the futures of both deserve to be considered. Either way, the survival instinct plays a large role in the decision, and I've never viewed killing in the act of self-defense as immoral if a life is in immenent danger.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228801 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I like what you said, but it has one problem. You said the strong protecting the weak, the rich protecting the poor. Except people like Grunt do not want to do these things. Once an unwanted child is born, they do not want to lift a finger to help that child live a normal life. He doesn't want to pay taxes for any sort of subsidized living. It just so happens that a woman accidentally got pregnant and maybe doesn't have the best education or has fallen on hard times and requires subsidized living. Now, I THINK it's responsible to take advantage of the tax dollars we all pay to create a more civilized society and use that money to give that child food, clothing, a bed, and a warm place to live. Yet Grunt and many others like him disagree with that. They think it should be solely up to the mother to just *poof* come up with a new life overnight.
Grunt does OK speaking for himself, but yes, we all need to take responsibility for the welfare of society as a whole, and the fact that some people will always act selfishly and irresponsible just means that the rest of us need to commit even more to that responsibility. How can we ever expect to be treated equally when we treat others unequally? How can we expect others to show respect for us when we ourselves are disrespectful to others? If we don’t commit ourselves to taking responsibility for the welfare of others, then we shouldn’t expect that others will ever take responsibility for the welfare of others either. By our actions, we all take part in shaping the world that we live in. The bottom line is that we need to always try and combat the injustices that we see in our world, but we’ll never accomplish that by committing even more injustices ourselves, or by either setting or building upon an unjust foundation.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228802 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever been on a plane? You are aware that they tell people traveling with children to put a mask over their own face first before putting one on the child. Figure that one out.
And by the by, I have never heard of a medical case where a pregnant woman was in critical condition and they took care of the fetus first.
What does this have anything to do with my comment?
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228803 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you *think* something doesn't make it true. Lots of people think a lot of things about PP that aren't true. But people refuse to hear facts because it suits their agenda.
You need to learn how to view the evidence, and to detect the obvious clues. When a spokesperson for PP might consider discussing the possible merits of saving a child’s life, that should at least give you a clue. When she won’t come out and say the obvious when asked, that the life of a child should be saved, that should give you another clue. You can’t come to a conclusion before looking at the evidence, unless your conclusion is preconceived. My conclusion is based solely on the factual evidence here. Then again, in addition to born children in all likelihood being killed, we need to of course consider the rights of the preborn children being killed.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228804 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is what it is in that stage of development. A zygote is not a person.
You lose the argument by using "pro-abortion." No one is pro-abortion. This has been stated to you many times by many posters. As for using morality to guide your thoughts, morality is subjective. You see abortion as selfish, I see it as completely lacking in selfishness. Anyone can choose to spit out a kid and give it a miserable life. But making a decision because you know it's in everyone's best interest despite what you may "want" is actually quite the opposite of selfish. Many women who become pregnant on accident wish they could continue the pregnancy. Many wish their lives were in different places, that they had the money, that they had a better job, that they weren't in an abusive relationship, etc. etc. etc. Many of them wish for a lot of things that would make having a child possible. Wishing for things doesn't make them come true and doesn't stop reality from ruining a lot of people's lives.
We make decisions to end people's lives all the time in our society. Ever hear of passive euthanasia? What do you think pulling the plug means? The problem with what you're saying is that a zygote is not a somebody.
A plant is alive. But that doesn't give it any rights. Things can be alive but that does not mean they are people.
Because it's potential life, there is every reason to abort it if you do not want to produce life. That potential life is also not guaranteed and many women have miscarriages very early on in their pregnancy. I had a miscarriage and by no means did I say I lost a baby. I lost the potential to have a baby if it had come to fruition.
Your lack of any logical reasoning in this entire comment is alarming. What does the stage of a person’s development have to do with whether they are a person or not? Pro-abortion rights views of this are based on a belief in scientific racism that's derived from a primitive understanding of genetics.

This isn’t one of your better comments. I like the guilt thing about how it’s in the best interest of everybody for you to have an abortion. This is what I consider to be very irresponsible on your part and is all too typical of pro-abortionists. You must be a counselor for Planned Parenthood.

The fact is that once you are pregnant, you no longer have to wish that you could have a child, and an abortion will end the life of that child. But then PP wouldn’t want you to know that, would they? Your comments show a very severe lack of ethical discretion.

Pulling the Plug? You are forgetting that the future of a preborn child in all likelihood would be considerably better than that of certain severely ill adults who some would deem to have no “valuable” future at all.

Plant rights? Are you serious? Our ethical behavior towards plants is different than towards people because we eat plants, while there is a reasonable expectation in society that we won’t eat each other.

And again, there is no such thing as a potential life. It’s not possible to kill a “potential” life.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228805 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's true, why aren't you more active in worldwide atrocities that violate the rights of innocent people? Why aren't you worried and actively searching for an end to the combat in Syria? Why aren't you worried about how North Korea is in a police state and its citizens are denied basic freedoms? Do you make this stuff your business to and if so, what do you do about it?
Why are you now obsessed with my personal life? This is a debate about the topic of abortion, and not about my personal life.
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#228806 Apr 7, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahahahahaha...oh my, we've got a Grunt groupie. Well, let me tell you this: I've known abused women and I've known women who have gotten abortions. And there isn't one damn similarity between them.
Silly, that’s because if you talk to the abused in one case, and to the abuser in another, you will get conflicting stories.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228807 Apr 7, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
To your question, this would be an emotional decision based on a current relationship with someone who is presumably loved very much, and with the prospect of losing that person. In that situation where we know for certain that there is no chance at all for her to survive without the abortion, if there is any chance at all for her to live, then I would want her to have the abortion. If she has almost no chance of surviving even with the abortion, it would be a very difficult decision, because you risk losing both of them. Then again, if there is any possible chance that she would survive without having the abortion, you could be killing the child unnecessarily. In this last scenario the decision would be based on the level of your morality, in whether you would risk your life to save another. I myself would, but I wouldn’t be able to make that decision for my wife, so if I was forced to make the decision for her I would have to favor her life. There are a lot of other possible hypothetical scenarios that might occur, and most of the choices that we make would be based on our level of morality, but others would be not much different than tossing a coin to decide. Looking at it objectively, both lives have great inherent value, and the futures of both deserve to be considered. Either way, the survival instinct plays a large role in the decision, and I've never viewed killing in the act of self-defense as immoral if a life is in immenent danger.
I don't think anyone would look at this situation the same as a coin toss.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228808 Apr 7, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Grunt does OK speaking for himself, but yes, we all need to take responsibility for the welfare of society as a whole, and the fact that some people will always act selfishly and irresponsible just means that the rest of us need to commit even more to that responsibility. How can we ever expect to be treated equally when we treat others unequally? How can we expect others to show respect for us when we ourselves are disrespectful to others? If we don’t commit ourselves to taking responsibility for the welfare of others, then we shouldn’t expect that others will ever take responsibility for the welfare of others either. By our actions, we all take part in shaping the world that we live in. The bottom line is that we need to always try and combat the injustices that we see in our world, but we’ll never accomplish that by committing even more injustices ourselves, or by either setting or building upon an unjust foundation.
Grunt doesn't do okay speaking for himself. He just puts out angry dribble. But at least you think it is our responsibility to help care for others.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228809 Apr 7, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this have anything to do with my comment?
I don't remember the exact comment you made because it was a few days ago and it's too late to go back and search for it. You can reiterate it if you'd like.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228810 Apr 7, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn how to view the evidence, and to detect the obvious clues. When a spokesperson for PP might consider discussing the possible merits of saving a child’s life, that should at least give you a clue. When she won’t come out and say the obvious when asked, that the life of a child should be saved, that should give you another clue. You can’t come to a conclusion before looking at the evidence, unless your conclusion is preconceived. My conclusion is based solely on the factual evidence here. Then again, in addition to born children in all likelihood being killed, we need to of course consider the rights of the preborn children being killed.
Certainly if you have predetermined opinions about something and look hard enough, you're sure to find it regardless. You view her response one way, I view it another. Both of us think we know the reality of the situation.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#228811 Apr 7, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of any logical reasoning in this entire comment is alarming. What does the stage of a person’s development have to do with whether they are a person or not? Pro-abortion rights views of this are based on a belief in scientific racism that's derived from a primitive understanding of genetics.
This isn’t one of your better comments. I like the guilt thing about how it’s in the best interest of everybody for you to have an abortion. This is what I consider to be very irresponsible on your part and is all too typical of pro-abortionists. You must be a counselor for Planned Parenthood.
The fact is that once you are pregnant, you no longer have to wish that you could have a child, and an abortion will end the life of that child. But then PP wouldn’t want you to know that, would they? Your comments show a very severe lack of ethical discretion.
Pulling the Plug? You are forgetting that the future of a preborn child in all likelihood would be considerably better than that of certain severely ill adults who some would deem to have no “valuable” future at all.
Plant rights? Are you serious? Our ethical behavior towards plants is different than towards people because we eat plants, while there is a reasonable expectation in society that we won’t eat each other.
And again, there is no such thing as a potential life. It’s not possible to kill a “potential” life.
I don't expect you to see the logic in my argument. You have a narrow view of what is selfish and unselfish.

The stage of development is very important in the case of abortion. It's the very reason why abortion is permissible in our society.

When you use the term "pro-abortion" you are not referring to me or anyone on this thread, so your comment there isn't relevant.

I also wouldn't expect you to understand someone else's dilemma. I don't expect you to understand what it would be like in a certain situation. I don't expect you know what it's like to be faced with that dilemma. And more importantly, I don't care if you don't agree or understand it. It's none of your business what I or any woman decides to do when it comes to her body. That's what you forced birthers don't understand.

A fetus is potential life. There's no certainty that there will be any life for that fetus. And there is no such thing as a preborn child, which you've been told a million times, so there's no need to regurgitate that information. Children are born.

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
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... (Feb '15) 2 min MUQ2 999
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 min dollarsbill 8,410
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 min Student 41,179
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 15 min PELE78 881,583
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 47 min Ruby88 53,498
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr 2all 603,771
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 1 hr Mister Clean 29
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr Into The Night 4,142
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 5 hr sangili karuppan 7,700
More from around the web