Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Abortion [CLOSED - Run Its Course - Circular Discussion]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 775
AbortionPage 33 of 35    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)

If you feel that God does not understand this, that could be the difference in our religious backgrounds. I wish you well in your beliefs, as I hope you will do for me.


I am not sure what to say on that note. I do indeed wish you well in your beliefs, and I also ask you as I would anyone else to consider your position. I understand if you wish to discontinue, and I do appreciate your contributions.
 DEBRA2006
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 776
view profile
History
Abortion
Posted: 7/28/2008 3:04:34 PM
Did you know a new Law might be surfacing in England regarding Abortion. Instead of going to your local dr, GP for advice on abortion or the go ahead etc. In future it is going to the courts so the woman has got to stand in court in front of a judge etc for an abortion and the father has a right to fight for the live of the child? is this good or bad!
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 777
Abortion
Posted: 7/29/2008 7:35:00 AM

I am not sure what to say on that note. I do indeed wish you well in your beliefs, and I also ask you as I would anyone else to consider your position. I understand if you wish to discontinue, and I do appreciate your contributions.
altruist80, Sorry, didn't mean to phrase it so much like a signoff. All I'm saying is that I think my position is a moderate one. Many in religion seem to take the attitude that if one is good two must be better and God said so, so there! Not so.

As a Jew, for example, I frequently encounter the more Orthodox of my faith who strictlymaintain a separation between meat and milk products. When I am with one of them, naturally I also observe this, out of respect for them. But this comes from the scriptural verse "Thou shall not boil a kid(calf) in it's own mother's milk. The context of the verse is a section is about sacrifices, and indeed this was a form of pagan sacrifice. And clearly an abomination. So that's the way I understand the passage, and indeed I haven't done any such sacrifices to pagan gods. I'm fine. To my more careful co-religionists, things have progressed to a point where one may not eat things that look like meat and milk products. Thus a chicken and cheese sandwich is forbidden. Since I've not heard of chicken milk, I feel this goes too far. But these are logical extensions for those wishing to be ultra-careful. No more illogical than extending the point of human life all the way to conception, or even beyond.

I feel we have a real obligation not to go off with the most extreme positions. Somehow it seems to be the tendency to feel that God is somehow in favor of the more extreme positions, rather than the more rational ones. Yet we all think of God as being, shall we say, a bit smarter than we are. Why then assume God takes dumb positions?
 Platojag
Joined: 4/8/2008
Msg: 778
Abortion
Posted: 7/29/2008 4:32:09 PM
Wow..! A lot of reading on this forum, isn't there! Well.., I have seen this forum a lot of times & thought that I would put my two cents in, so.....

Without getting into a heady discussion about why I feel this way, I will just say that I agree with the very 1st post of this forum:
(which was)
--------------------------------------------
Tis not a crime against God. God understands when a raped woman does not wish to have the child of her attacker. God understands when a person does not want to have children.
God agrees with those who choose abortion, and holds nothing against them. If they don't have kids, he says "So be it!"
-------------------------------------------

Personally..., I think that having an abortion because: either of you were just too lazy to use birth control; thought it might be an interesting experiment/something new to try (re: the recent news reports in the U.S.); or that you wanted to have a child, then changed your mind after getting pregnant (assuming here.., that you are totally capable.. mentally, physically & financially of raising this child in a happy & healthy environment)... is wrong. Nothing to do directly with Religion or anything else, other than it is just very irresponsible thinking.

Now.., if the woman in question was: raped; forced into pregnancy by someone; came down with a very fatal disease that could be passed onto her child; or lost physical and/or mental capacity to raise the child in a healthy & happy environment, then.... I would agree with her decision.

BUT..., all in all... at the very end of all the argumnets posted (and there have been some great points made) ... I believe that the final decision should ALWAYS be that of the Pregnant woman. (whether others agree with her, or not). It is HER body, HER pregnancy & HER life change that is the most affected, so it should ultimately be HER CHOICE.

I don't think that God is a "hurtful God, nor do I believe that anyone should have "the fear of God put in them". God is not fear. God is LOVE. How can you agree that God is omni -benevelent, and then think that a woman will be "punished by God" for making a decision that (not everyone) agrees with? I'll tell you something, "we punish our own selves every day" when we know in our hearts, that we have done something wrong. God then... forgives us.
 Liana K
Joined: 6/13/2008
Msg: 779
Abortion
Posted: 7/29/2008 8:28:01 PM
^^^ I find that all very profound ...especially with the last statement of, 'God forgives us'. Nice post, platojag.
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 780
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 8:00:15 AM

I feel we have a real obligation not to go off with the most extreme positions. Somehow it seems to be the tendency to feel that God is somehow in favor of the more extreme positions, rather than the more rational ones. Yet we all think of God as being, shall we say, a bit smarter than we are. Why then assume God takes dumb positions?


I think the word" extreme" is subject for debate. I do understand your rationale as far as taking a moderate position. I can see that you consider it to be wise, and I could certainly agree with a moderate position on almost any other subject. I do not feel my position is "extreme." This is not because the word is subjective, but because this is not simply a matter of some minor trangression. To state that one should not do a thing under virtually any circumstances depends upon what the thing is. One cannot judge it to be an extreme point of view unless they know what action they feel should be prohibited. For example, to say that one should never have open flames around a flamable liquids storage area is hardly extreme, nor would it constitute a dumb position.


don't think that God is a "hurtful God, nor do I believe that anyone should have "the fear of God put in them". God is not fear. God is LOVE. How can you agree that God is omni -benevelent, and then think that a woman will be "punished by God" for making a decision that (not everyone) agrees with? I'll tell you something, "we punish our own selves every day" when we know in our hearts, that we have done something wrong. God then... forgives us.


Let's say you saw a man attempt to kill his child. Would you disagree with the decision? Would you then feel that you have no right to intervene? After all, it's obvious the man in question does not feel the same way about it as you do. He thinks he has good reason to do what he does. There is always rationalization involved. So... should you leave the situation up to God or try to prevent it? At this point it has nothing to do with God's judgement and everything to do with your duty as a human being. This is of course assuming that some people still possess this sense of duty.

I agree with you that God is love, so why assume he has no love for the child?

I think you misinterpret the "fear of God" as related to the liberties of His people. Tell me to which god you are referring and perhaps we can explore it. If you speak of Christianity, there are multiple warnings about abused liberty.
 romanticoptimist
Joined: 10/1/2007
Msg: 781
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 9:31:10 AM
The LIFE argument (above) is well presented and sound, but I have a problem with the constant switching between "Child" and "fetus" (by many), and the constant attachment of fetal development to pre-fetal development. I wish people would use a simple demarcation and name the hour range or day range they believe themselves to be referencing. It would make it much simpler for others to follow and produce something close to a clearer statement that can be debated on the basis of known facts. A nucleus is not a zygote is not an embryo is not a fetus is not a child.

-Based on the unknown:

Removal of the fetus is reckless and unreasonable. "Reason requires that you accept a constraint on your liberty because reason requires that you accept a policy to protect the innocent from unjust harm."
Good quote.

The only conclusion which does not result in a NULL-JUSTIFICATION possibility for any outcome is that abortion MUST BE ASSUMED to cause the death of human life.
Again, you need to define the range that you believe defines "human life" in the above sentence.

I wonder if this can be still said of those many fetus's that have been born babies that later grow into children and abandoned.
It really is irrelevant because the potential future of a fetus does not define its rights. What if the fetus would grow up to be a great doctor or leader or find a cure for cancer or discover an unlimited and cheap source of power. Or become a really nice person. This argument presumes only one possible outcome for the non-aborted fetus, a negative one. And then goes on the presume that a potentially negative outcome is sufficient reason to abort.

As for the "rape" argument for abortion, I think it's a smoke screen. No statistics that show how many abortions are performed because of rape are ever presented. And the Morning After Pill would be used in probably most cases. Clearly, almost every abortion is not as a result of rape.

A fetus has no choice. It has no decision making abilities. Why is it in some countries around the world, a human being cannot have a say in things until they reach the minimum age of 18, yet a fetus can have a decision?
That's a false argument and analogy. The "choice" to live is a basic human right. Unless you're willing to extend the "right" of the mother to "choose" to terminate the life of a child that has already been born. I don't think you are, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument. "Choice" in regard to life has little if anything to do with the ability to make decisions. In this case the concern is that the right of the mother to terminate is declared to supersede the rightof the fetus to continue living.

This is ridiculous. A fetus cannot survive without its mother. A human being can. Once a child is born, it breathes on its own, it can eat, do normal things that human beings do. But a fetus cannot. A fetus does not count. A fetus is not a person.
That is a legal definition, but not one that all agree with. Legal definitions about what is a person can be wrong. Not to long about blacks in the US were not persons legally, yet they appeared to be so actually. Legal definitions may be morally wrong and inaccurate.

While I do not agree that abortion is a safe thing to do for the "getting rid of the problem" in some cases, it is necessary. If a fetus is deformed, how is that baby/child/adult going to live in society that we all know?
Then you should be willing to extend the same logic to all crippled and deformed persons. Maybe we could have trucks that go around and gas them with the exhaust like they did in Germany in the 30-40s. They thought it both efficient and humane to do so. And it had clear benefits for society at large. About the only argument against their program was that even the crippled and deformed have rights, and indeed society has a duty to protect them because their state makes them less able to protect themselves.

Despite having the question of whether we are dealing with a human or not, here we are, back to cries of murder.

The simple fact is that if we are not dealing with a human being, it is not murder. We kill things every day that are not human and are not bothered. Saying it is murder does not make it so!
I think it's really, really important that this point be understood. Before the label "murder" can be applied, proof of "person" must be presented. You must first demarcate a line in the growth from sperm/egg to fully developed and delivered baby, then apply personhood to all over that line, and then apply the label. It is not logically feasible to apply "murder" to the removal of a newly fertilised egg. I would also add that the use of "murder" in this context is inflammatory and unnecessary.

The zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior adult are ALL “Stages-of-Development” of Human Beings that Logically deserve the status as a Human Being and protection by Law.
Please provide your proof that the "Human Being" can be logically applied to "zygote" and "embryo".

To this day, the courts in North America have not recognized or implemented any laws re abortion in terms of it being murder. Any varied argument on your end, no matter how you present it, falls rather short on validity due to the laws that are (or are not?) in place today
The Law is not the final arbiter on what is or isn't wrong. Not so long ago, the Law defined black people as non-persons. it defined women as non-persons in regard to the right to vote. Ditto in regard to the right to own property. The Law can often be wrong. And the Law has a history of being wrong, especially with regard to Human Rights.
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 782
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 10:52:59 AM
per allegiant_one:

The zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior adult are ALL “Stages-of-Development” of Human Beings that Logically deserve the status as a Human Being and protection by Law.

per romanticoptimist:

Please provide your proof that the "Human Being" can be logically applied to "zygote" and "embryo".


...? I'm not sure which part of that post you felt was incorrect. The zygote and embryo both have human DNA, and unique DNA at that. Sooo.... if it isn't human, to which animal does it belong? Any biology or medical book that deals with the physical development of humans will certainly include the zygote and embryo stage.


Again, you need to define the range that you believe defines "human life" in the above sentence.


Remember when you asked me to make a case for the one-day-old embryo? Well, I did, and everyone skipped it. To answer your question, all ranges after conception.


It really is irrelevant because the potential future of a fetus does not define its rights.


I had to think about the "potential" argument for a bit before I decided whether or not it is sustainable. I avoided it for some time thinking it was flawed in some way, but then I made a haphazard discovery about the nature of death and why we feel it is wrong. I hereby submit the following excerpt from The Ethics of Killing by Jeff McMahan:

"
The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.
"

If we discredited the "potential" argument entirely, we may as well go on to say that killing is ok. Why? Because the immorality of killing deals with potentials. It deprives the person of any potential future happiness and therefore perceived to be heinous.

To test this, ask yourself who the first person is you think about as related to danger or mortality. When the heavy load is giving way on the crane and the worker below cannot hear you, is your immediate concern his family? No. It's him. You want HIM to move so HE does not die or get injured, because doing so is ultimately BAD. Doing so means his life will end.

Most people think first of the victim of death then the rest follows as an afterthought. Death robs a person of his potential. Even if early-stage abortion was proven to be simply killing a non-human, you still commit the same act. Exclude physical death and the result is still the same. The fetus is robbed of an entire future.
 Platojag
Joined: 4/8/2008
Msg: 783
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 12:29:51 PM
altruist80 --- (I don't use quoted sections so please forgive me, in just referring to your post that addressed me)

..and a BIG "hello", to Romanticoptimist (the thinker)

As I said at the beginning of my last post, I do not want/intend to get into a debate about God. Without going into my background. my spiritual belief system or anything else (this will be ALL I will post here on the subject) I will say this, about my own concept of God:

"I believe in ONE God... I also believe that many names: God; Allah; Buddah; Great Spirit; Wakan-Tanka; Manitou; Yahweh; Ghitze Manidoo; The Creator; and all the other names that are used for the ONE, higher power, are all just different names for the same ONE omnipotent; omniscient & omnibenevolent God. *(PLEASE....no semantics about anything else, and how it connects to God, okay? This is "my belief" and I have no interest in proving "why" I feel this way. It is not the subject of this forum, anyway)."

You asked about "murder", in your last post to me. Yes! I would not just walk by, while a fellow human being was getting murdered ( and I have not done this). Sure..., I would intervene, if at all possible. Now..., when a fetus is past the point of an unsafe abortion (or unjust, as far as legalities go) I would think it is wrong. Yes... I know what you are going to say.."But, the fetus IS a human being upon conception..." True, in those terms. That's not the question of this forum, though. You seem to be trying to press a DIFFERENT point of ethics in your discussion, and I am not refuting and/or agreeing with you. I am basing my answer on my own principles.
You may find this hard to comprehend, but in my own opinion..., ALL of God's creations have a right to live. ALL forms of life. This includes: plants; people; trees; animals; birds; fish; etc. That is "my own" belief, and I'm not asking you to agree or disagree, okay?

So..., we eat plants, fish & animals..., we take down trees and mine other parts of creation for our own use. Why is that not "a crime against God"? Will we all suffer "punishment" for killing his other creations? I don't feel that is the case, do you? So... (bible and all other "man made" writings aside here) ... WHO can truly "know" what God has placed the most importance on? We can have theories, refer to writings I just mentioned, but only GOD can give us a true answer, right?

This is all I have to say about this subject. Continue on & debate until the sun comes up & I bet that you will never come to any complete, mutual agreement. Everyone has their own belief system, right? Well..., that's why I believe that every WOMAN should have the right to make her own decision, on this matter. GOOD THOUGHTS TO EVERYONE!
 romanticoptimist
Joined: 10/1/2007
Msg: 784
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 1:13:04 PM

someone said: The zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior adult are ALL “Stages-of-Development” of Human Beings that Logically deserve the status as a Human Being and protection by Law.

I said: Please provide your proof that the "Human Being" can be logically applied to "zygote" and "embryo".

altruist80: said: ...? I'm not sure which part of that post you felt was incorrect. The zygote and embryo both have human DNA, and unique DNA at that. Sooo.... if it isn't human, to which animal does it belong?

I agree that it has human DNA, if only to spare the pressing need to use absurd examples. The term "Human Being" was used by the original writer to define "those persons with the right to the protection all person have under the law, specifically the right to continue to live". I thought "Human Being" would be shorter.

Anyway, the question -- to the original writer - still stands. But I do thank you for your input.
 HeavyMetalChick100
Joined: 6/25/2008
Msg: 785
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 2:22:10 PM
I guess if some consider it murder, then I guess I'm a serial killer lol, I've had 6 abortions, my first at age 13 last at age 22 , but then again, I was very very sexually active early in life , and not always smart at the time, never bothered me to off them basically, cause I know I'm definately not Mother material , any kids I would have had
would have had crappy lives... so abortion does work, in my opinion luckily havent needed one in decades, so use a frikin condom girls lol
 allegiant_one
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 786
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:51:14 PM
Romanticoptimist...


Please provide your proof that the "Human Being" can be logically applied to "zygote" and "embryo".


I stated this once before, but I'll be glad to share this again....logically. Please forgive repeating these posts...

Your skin “cells” contain Human Genetic Material but that does NOT mean that they have the “Inherent Capacity” to be a Zygote, and Embryo, a Fetus, an Infant, a Toddler, an Adolescent, or an Adult. Skin Cells that fall from your skin, DO NOT Possess that “Inherent Capacity”. The “conceived” Zygote DOES!

The “conceived” Zygote is a Different kind of Human Genetic Material. It is a purpose-driven and self-integrating ENTITY, that is in "Command" of it’s Own Development. It is an “individual” Human Being…an “individual” Human Person. Developing!

“Inherent Capacity” means that NOTHING MORE WILL BE ADDED to that “ENTITY” to MAKE it a HUMAN BEING…It has Everything “programmed” within it, from the beginning! (Conception).

Sperm and Ovum, LEFT TO THEMSELVES, will DIE ! They DO NOT possess the “Inherent Capacity” to BE a HUMAN BEING. ONLY when they “undergo” the CONCEPTION or FERTILIZATION Process, do they become “INDIVIDUAL” Human Beings and Human LIFE “begins” to Develop!

In other words, we are INDIVIDUAL Human Beings from CONCEPTION.

We didn’t “COME FROM” a Zygote....We “ONCE WERE” a Zygote.

We didn’t “EVOLVE” from a Fetus...We “ONCE WERE” a Fetus.

I believe this is the Logic you are inquiring about. Correct?

This "Pro-Life" /"Anti-Abortion position is BOTH Scientifically and Philosophically "SOUND"!

 HeavyMetalChick100
Joined: 6/25/2008
Msg: 787
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 5:42:22 PM
wow, tricky reading for this gal lol,like i said before, when it doubt and not wanted, scrape it out, world is already overpopulated and many kids live in poverty anyway,
mine would have if i had them, the sex pistols say it the best
Bodies:

She was a girl from Birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was case of insanity
Her name was Pauline, she lived in a tree

She was a no one who killed her baby

yup sounds like me at the time I had my abortions lol
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 788
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 6:13:06 PM

The zygote and embryo both have human DNA, and unique DNA at that. Sooo.... if it isn't human, to which animal does it belong? Any biology or medical book that deals with the physical development of humans will certainly include the zygote and embryo stage.
The separate sperm and egg each have human DNA as well. Any biology or medical book will certainly include this stage as well. But this does not make them human.

No, you are backing into the argument. There is no logical reason to put the point of humanity at conception except to agree with the church's position. All else fails as various points along a rather continuous spectrum of possible points that could be picked for this.


Even if early-stage abortion was proven to be simply killing a non-human, you still commit the same act. Exclude physical death and the result is still the same. The fetus is robbed of an entire future.
Absolutely not! Am I morally obligated to make love with your wife because not to do so would prevent a possible human being and rob it of it's entire future? Of course not! Where do we draw the line? I suggest that preventing entire futures is not a good criterion.

Let's keep these things within reason. I mentioned the tendency to go toward extremes. I think that's where this is headed.
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 789
Abortion
Posted: 7/30/2008 7:46:16 PM
Absolutely not! Am I morally obligated to make love with your wife because not to do so would prevent a possible human being and rob it of it's entire future? Of course not! Where do we draw the line? I suggest that preventing entire futures is not a good criterion.


First off, if YOU ever became obligated to make love to MY wife, I would strongly insist such an obligation was based upon false authority! I think you had a Freudian slip there. lol

It only looks like it is heading toward the extreme because I did not re-hash a key element. The future of a zygote/embryo/fetus is IN MOTION much like a child or adult. Like allegiant_one said, nothing else must be added for the life to emerge on its own. Likewise, no action by you or me is required for Joe Blow to take his next breath. Both Joe Blow's future and the fetus's future is imminent (forsaking natural causes which we have already covered). Now prevent Joe Blow from taking his next breath and you prevent him from having a future. It has little to do with the pain of suffocation because it would be considered far less heinous if Joe recovered from being suffocated, true? So what is the difference death makes? Ask why Joe's death is such a big deal. You deny him of something, so what is it? Do not these questions center upon issues of potential?

True or False: Forsaking natural causes, both entities have a life, a future ahead of them.

Can we say the same of the non-existant?

I am not finished with this argument and would like to continue to explore it, but I am extremely sleepy. I will check back later.
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 790
Abortion
Posted: 7/31/2008 8:41:17 AM

First off, if YOU ever became obligated to make love to MY wife, I would strongly insist such an obligation was based upon false authority! I think you had a Freudian slip there. lol
This was not a freudian slip, but an example of where one goes when one pursues extremes. This is a potential human life. Obviously, to have that human life occur would require pretty offensive act. Not to mention I don't think you're married

But if we have an obligation to potential humans, where do we draw the line?
 romanticoptimist
Joined: 10/1/2007
Msg: 791
Abortion
Posted: 7/31/2008 10:18:08 AM

I asked: Please provide your proof that the "Human Being" can be logically applied to "zygote" and "embryo".

allegiant_one said: I stated this once before, but I'll be glad to share this again.
A lengthy and emphasised explanation follows. See msg 857 for details.

Thank you for the explanation. It helped me realise that if you believe a fertilised egg is a "Human Being" and that a fertilised egg has all the rights and protections of an infant, we are so far apart there's no point in discussion. I appreciate that clarification. And good luck with all that bolding.
 HeavyMetalChick100
Joined: 6/25/2008
Msg: 792
Abortion
Posted: 7/31/2008 2:34:13 PM
ya'll have way too much time on your hands, lol, forget all this just go out and get a woman or a man, and just enjoy life lol , religion is a time waster , so I knocked off a few fetuses , i just dont see the big deal lol
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 793
Abortion
Posted: 7/31/2008 3:08:09 PM

I think the word" extreme" is subject for debate. I do understand your rationale as far as taking a moderate position. I can see that you consider it to be wise, and I could certainly agree with a moderate position on almost any other subject. I do not feel my position is "extreme." This is not because the word is subjective, but because this is not simply a matter of some minor trangression. To state that one should not do a thing under virtually any circumstances depends upon what the thing is. One cannot judge it to be an extreme point of view unless they know what action they feel should be prohibited. For example, to say that one should never have open flames around a flamable liquids storage area is hardly extreme, nor would it constitute a dumb position.
All extremists take this position, that their paticular view, while extreme, is justified. Frequently because God said so, or somehow authorized it. Poor God, to have His authority so nicely divided that all sides get a share, however crazy they might be, or how diametrically opposed.

No! It is not subjective at all. There is a range of positions on most subjects. Extreme positions are the ones at the ends. Your example of an open flame around flamable liquids does not represent such a position because no one takes such a position. Or if they do, the situation quickly resolves itself, as they quickly disappear from the scene. Ironically, such disappearances are sometimes featured on lists of "Darwin Awards."
 Beholder123
Joined: 6/25/2008
Msg: 794
Abortion
Posted: 7/31/2008 9:48:34 PM
Abortion is MURDER...bottom line......
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 795
Abortion
Posted: 8/1/2008 8:20:25 AM

Abortion is MURDER...bottom line......

Please see my post # 835 and 839.

Why don't folks actually read some of the thread before posting?

The question still is whether we are dealing with a human being or not. It is not murder if we are not.

The bottom line is that the current view that human life begins at conception is from the late ninteenth century, and came about to settle a church dispute. Please look up the history before shrilly shouting murder!

I have no objection to a rational discussion concerning whether or not we are dealing with a human being. Politeness counts.

Excuse me, but shouting Murder is both ignorant (of the actual background) and rude.
 Beholder123
Joined: 6/25/2008
Msg: 796
Abortion
Posted: 8/1/2008 8:53:23 AM
I am not being irrational....it IS murder. When you take a pair of scissors and stab a baby in the skull and cut its FORMED brain into peices, vacuum its brain out to stop its BEATING heart...IT IS MURDER......Have you ever listened to an abortion? Its sick...revolting.

Have you ever gone on abortion websites? LOOK at the babies and seen how big some of them are before they are killed?

FULLY FORMED babies are then thrown in the trash, check it out if you dont believe me!

AND...are you going to tell me that a living being who WOULD have been born into the world if not otherwise uh..killed is NOT murder...what IS it then?
I am not rude....this is MY opinion...dont tell me I dont have the right to have one......I was givin the right to LIVE and speak my opinion...some people weere not given that option....If you dont like it....dont read it....


 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 797
Abortion
Posted: 8/1/2008 9:39:53 AM
^^^The abortion web sites show nearly fully formed babies. It is my personal belief that these are indeed human, and so in these cases I agree with you.

As I said, if you are going to shout MURDER, you need to establish that we are talking about a human being. My position is somewhat moderate. It is the position that the church and most people had until the late ninteenth century, and which is still the position of most Jewish law. That the fetus become human at quickening, sentience, or roughly the first tri-mester.

Following this, I agree with you, it is human, and deserves the protections due.

But the abortion websites, naturally do not concentrate on normal early abortions, which are unspectacular, and do not involve a sentient being. This would not portray the the position they are trying to show.

My suggestion is that rather than simply shouting MURDER, you try to make the distinctions as to what is murder and what is not. If it does not involve a human being, it is not murder.

I realize that the common belief today is that human life begins at conception, and so therefore we are dealing with a human, but please remember that this is a relatively recent concept, and not at all a sure thing. Hardly the sort of thing one ought to go shouting Murder about, in my opinion.


AND...are you going to tell me that a living being who WOULD have been born into the world if not otherwise uh..killed is NOT murder...what IS it then?
It is farther along than the separate sperm and egg. Roughly 1/3 of these are spontaneously aborted by nature. With luck it will become a human, but is not one yet.


I am not rude....this is MY opinion...dont tell me I dont have the right to have one.....
You absolutely have a right to your opinion. Now that you are discussing and not simply shouting murder, you are able to express your opinion sensibly without being rude.


I was givin the right to LIVE and speak my opinion...some people were not given that option
No, that's the question we're discussing, not the conclusion, whether we're talking about people or not.
 Beholder123
Joined: 6/25/2008
Msg: 798
Abortion
Posted: 8/1/2008 10:17:13 AM
"ya'll have way too much time on your hands, lol, forget all this just go out and get a woman or a man, and just enjoy life lol , religion is a time waster , so I knocked off a few fetuses , i just dont see the big deal lol."

Absolutely revolting...................
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 799
Abortion
Posted: 8/1/2008 12:56:10 PM
^^^ You and I can agree to disagree. That's fine. As I said, you have a right to your opinion. Apparently, those of us who are moderate do not have rights to ours, and merely have to much time on our hands.

What I find revolting is the refusal to discuss this at a rational level. As it happens, I am not perticularly a pro-choice advocate, but take a somewhat moderate position. But that's not good enough. If I don't fall in line with your opinion it's "Absolutely revolting."

In my opinion, the "pro-life" movement, of which you seem rather typical, does itself great disservice by rejecting all but the most extreme positions. If you read my earlier post, I said I agreed with much of your position. But no, forget it. You simply choose to distort my position: "so I knocked off a few fetuses , i just dont see the big deal lol."

I return to my earlier opinion that you are rude. Sorry, but the evidence supports that conclusion.




THREAD CLOSED


- Run its Course - Circular Discussion






Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Abortion [CLOSED - Run Its Course - Circular Discussion]