Is abortion murder? (by: Elroy)

Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Is abortion murder? (by: Elroy)

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Yes it IS murder......Life

Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception. There is no other way to look at it. Look at it for what it is. Just because its legal doesn't mean its not murder. There is malice involved and the taking of a life. I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
No chance at a civil 

No chance at a civil  discussion on this topic.

 

I pass.Tongue out


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The only time I think

The only time I think abortion should be legal is if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, illegal. Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant. All things, including unborn babies should have a chance at life. Now is it murder to abort? I think once it reachs a certain point in the pregnancy yes, that certain point being cognitive thought. However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think that it is

I think that it is justifiable homicide. The fetus is a human life and having an abortion kills it but the right to life is not absolute.

If I was dying and the only thing that could save my life was for me to brush my scrotum gently across the face of our beloved president George W. Bush, then if he wants to come to my house and get tea bagged that’s great; it would be very generous of him. But he doesn’t have to do it just because that’s what I need to survive.

You don’t have a right to life if the thing you need to stay alive is something you have no right to have, like the use of another person’s body. A human has to grow parasitically inside the body of another human for 9 months. That is not a small sacrifice and no one should have to make it if they don’t want to.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote: No.

Dave_G wrote:

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.

 

You said it Dave_G.  Thank you.

 

Anti-abortion theists:  How about we stop abortions when you stop your religious murdering?

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I find it thouroughly

I find it thouroughly incoherent to claim that abortion is not murder, when the fetus has its own genome and metabolism.

Call a spade a spade, will you?!? If the unborn fetus is merely a part of the woman's body, why does she need a man to make it?

The worst I can see you legitimately saying without being hipocritical is that the unborn fetus is a saprophyte because it has it's own independent genome, yet is fully dependent on the mother, but this implies life apart from the mother, so you are not willing to admit such.

On a similar note, if a human fetus was born in an artificial womb (like in Brave New World: there have been experiments with rats with this in mind) is it its own creature?

If it is, then the declaration of the unborn fetus in a person's body is arbitrary because there is no difference caused by the choice of the fetus between the natural womb, where it is not a person, and the synthetic womb, where it is.

Conversely, if it is not it's own being, then what other organism is it a part of?

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Now there's a ten dollar

Now there's a ten dollar word. I had to look it up. Are you sure that's what you mean?

 

saprophyte

(Science: microbiology) An organism whose nutrition involves uptake of dissolved organic material from decaying plant or animal matter.

Origin: Gr. Phyton = plant


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Er...no.  I was searching

Er...no.

 I was searching for a more precise synonym for parasite, but that didn't work. Apparently I just wound up with a word that meant fungus.

Point conceded.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder, and not

Abortion is murder, and not murder.

Pro-choice, and pro-life. Everyone just seems to define things wierdly.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


dek
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

I find it thouroughly incoherent to claim that abortion is not murder, when the fetus has its own genome and metabolism.

Call a spade a spade, will you?!? If the unborn fetus is merely a part of the woman's body, why does she need a man to make it?

The worst I can see you legitimately saying without being hipocritical is that the unborn fetus is a saprophyte because it has it's own independent genome, yet is fully dependent on the mother, but this implies life apart from the mother, so you are not willing to admit such.

On a similar note, if a human fetus was born in an artificial womb (like in Brave New World: there have been experiments with rats with this in mind) is it its own creature?

If it is, then the declaration of the unborn fetus in a person's body is arbitrary because there is no difference caused by the choice of the fetus between the natural womb, where it is not a person, and the synthetic womb, where it is.

Conversely, if it is not it's own being, then what other organism is it a part of?

 

I take the stance that sentience is not black or white. The killing of some animals is more 'wrong' than others (although exactly how you 'score' animals is of course open to debate). All things being equal a human life is worth more than a chimpanzee which is worth more than a cow. If a human life could be saved by replacing their failing heart with of a baboon I would personally kill that baboon. This coming from a vegetarian, non-leather wearer who captures and releases spiders outside rather then squishing them. With the spiders I have to weigh my annoyance with the spider with it's right to life. In the end killing and cleaning up take about the same amount of time so relocation is the best option. Had it been a goat or other 'higher' animal I'd have to say it's right to life is much greater than that of a spider so killing it for being annoying isn't such a valid option.

Same deal with abortion. At some point from conception to birth you cross what I'll call the right to life point where the mother switches from incubator to guardian. Before this point it's a matter of family planning, after a matter of needless killing, murder. In my mind the debate is over where this line should be.

    Personally I don't place this line until such time as the child would have a reasonable change of living outside the mother. Last time I checked thats about at the end of the second trimester. This is pretty close to Roe v. Wade so I'm pretty happy with it.

For a motherless child you're comparing the right of the child versus that of the people keeping the womb running, which in my mind would require a stronger case for terminating even an pretty early pregnancy. Plus I'd assume accidental pregnancies that don't require a mother would be quite rare.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Hello Pot!  Meet

Hello Pot!  Meet Kettle!

 

Hello Abortion!  Meet Religous Murder!

 

Yeah, abortion should never be used as birth control.  It should be the last resort and done early and it almost always is.

So yeah, don't abuse abortion.  And if you're too stupid to not wear a condom or go on the pill the 2nd time around then well, maybe you should have an abortion because we don't need any stupid lifeform born from a stupid person.  If it's you're 3rd time, I suggest getting them tied.  Do us all a favour.

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Obviously an acorn is not an

Obviously an acorn is not an oak tree...

Personally, I set the bar a little lower; if the fetus can survive outside of the mother without lots of technology, then I feel it is independent enough where ending it would be wrong (under most circumstances).

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Obviously an

qbg wrote:
Obviously an acorn is not an oak tree... Personally, I set the bar a little lower; if the fetus can survive outside of the mother without lots of technology, then I feel it is independent enough where ending it would be wrong (under most circumstances).

 

Without technology, safe abortions would not be possible. How does the level of technology in use today apply? 100 years ago, a premies had very low survival rates. Today it is routine for many premies to survive and when extradinary measures are taken, there are premies surviving that are close to where they could have been legally aborted. In another 100 years it is conceivable that technolgy will routinely save premies even in the first trimester. I guess I don't think technology helps us answer this question.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh boy,  Please tell me

Oh boy, 

Please tell me this is not another attempt to make us atheists out to be kitten barbaquers. This response is not aimed at any one poster, it is an OP/ED.

There is so much wrong with calling abortion murder. Most of it stems from the paranoia superstition of theism.

1. If it wasnt part of "God's plan" it wouldnt happen.

2. Misscarages and stillborns happen naturally. If you assign that to a magical bearded man in the sky, that super dad would be the biggest abortion provider of all time.

3. The firtalization of the egg is an arbitrary point theists pick. Sperm and eggs are all potential life, but we dont kill arrest people for noctrnal emmision or masterbation. We dont arrest women for expelling an egg during a period.

4. What does this say about efficiancy? If god were perfect, like(fictional characters can be because of the abiguity of the beliver) It would stand to reason that such a claimed being would have a much better ratio of production, say one sperm an one egg always producing a healthy and wanted kid. We dont see that in reality. The mistake theists make is viewing life as if it were a rabbit being pulled out of  a hat.

Pollen is basically tree sperm. From one tree during the spring, it produces hundreds of millions of pollen (sperm). But just like human male sperm, 99.999999999999999999999% do not produce life. Most biological reproduction attempts fail. This is hardly the work of perfection.

There are atheists here who would not have an abortion, but dont base that decision on superstion and recognize that their choice is one of personal responsibility.

The point is dispite the lies fundies sell about atheists, we dont throw parties when a women gets prenant and discovers that the kid will come out deformed or brain dead, or even if it is merely because she cant afford it. WE DONT FIND JOY IN ABORTION.

But, we also dont want goverment telling us what we can or cannot do with our own bodies. If you fear a goverment forcing abortion on you by gunpoint, then dont be a hypocrite and force atheists or pro choice people into back allies. It cuts both ways.

Here is the skinny. If you say your god is real, then let this "all powerfull" being speek for itself and do his own dirty work on us if we are wrong. Bottem line, for or against, I dont care, but dont act like you own anyone or have the right to tell people they must submit to your diety because you were told by it you could dictate to us. Theocracies are not fun for those outside the majority, that is why we have a goverment which laws are based on consensus and protection of dissent.

Abortion will aways exist. No one in their right mind throws a party over one. So stop this lying about what the intent of pro choice or atheists are. We value human life too. But we dont presume to be the judge of our neighbor. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think any restrictions

I think any restrictions whatsoever on abortion are wrong. Calling abortion murder is just plain stupid. This has been addressed before. By the way, the Bible says life begins at birth:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1. If it wasnt part

Quote:

1. If it wasnt part of "God's plan" it wouldnt happen.

If part of god's plan is to have a world with human free will then abortion is part of that plan.

Quote:

2. Misscarages and stillborns happen naturally. If you assign that to a magical bearded man in the sky, that super dad would be the biggest abortion provider of all time.

Since you invoked the mystical dude in the sky, Let's go all the way with it. Since this he has the mythical quality of omniscience, he has the wisdom to know the effect on ones life in the case of a miscarraige. Humans don't have that prescience.

Quote:

3. The firtalization of the egg is an arbitrary point theists pick. Sperm and eggs are all potential life, but we dont kill arrest people for noctrnal emmision or masterbation. We dont arrest women for expelling an egg during a period.

Actually, this is the only point descreet enough in the reproduction cycle to not be arbitrary. A single sperm penetrating the wall of an egg is a very specific point in time. Far less arbitrary than the first second and third trimester rules of current abortion practice. What the point of fertilization MEANS is the real question.

Quote:

4. What does this say about efficiancy? If god were perfect, like(fictional characters can be because of the abiguity of the beliver) It would stand to reason that such a claimed being would have a much better ratio of production, say one sperm an one egg always producing a healthy and wanted kid. We dont see that in reality. The mistake theists make is viewing life as if it were a rabbit being pulled out of a hat.

What gives us tthe right to tell this mythical god what the acceptable level of efficiency is? We are less than ants to this god. If god decides the most effecient thing to do is to annihilate us, we can object all we want but we are still ants on the receiving end of a giant can of Raid.

 

Quote:

Pollen is basically tree sperm. From one tree during the spring, it produces hundreds of millions of pollen (sperm). But just like human male sperm, 99.999999999999999999999% do not produce life. Most biological reproduction attempts fail. This is hardly the work of perfection.

 

If that pollen were wasted, I suppose you might have a point. But the 99.999999999999999999999% of the pollen that is not part of fertilization sustains the ecosystm in many ways. Just go ask a colony of bees what they do with it. Actually, the natural world is astonishingly efficient. Nothing goes to waste. Sounds pretty perfect to me.

Quote:

There are atheists here who would not have an abortion, but dont base that decision on superstion and recognize that their choice is one of personal responsibility.

The point is dispite the lies fundies sell about atheists, we dont throw parties when a women gets prenant and discovers that the kid will come out deformed or brain dead, or even if it is merely because she cant afford it. WE DONT FIND JOY IN ABORTION.

But, we also dont want goverment telling us what we can or cannot do with our own bodies. If you fear a goverment forcing abortion on you by gunpoint, then dont be a hypocrite and force atheists or pro choice people into back allies. It cuts both ways.

Here is the skinny. If you say your god is real, then let this "all powerfull" being speek for itself and do his own dirty work on us if we are wrong. Bottem line, for or against, I dont care, but dont act like you own anyone or have the right to tell people they must submit to your diety because you were told by it you could dictate to us. Theocracies are not fun for those outside the majority, that is why we have a goverment which laws are based on consensus and protection of dissent.

Abortion will aways exist. No one in their right mind throws a party over one. So stop this lying about what the intent of pro choice or atheists are. We value human life too. But we dont presume to be the judge of our neighbor.

 

So what I think your saying is this, as long as the decision to abort is arrvied at through rational thinking, then you have the right to abort.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would say it is usually

I would say it is usually done through rational thought - she either can't afford to or isn't ready to take care of a baby. And doesn't want to spend 9 months as the equivalent of a victim of the monsters from the "Alien" series movies.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Modern religious

Quote:
Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

Crashing evidence to support would be cloning a sheep from a hair-root-cell of another sheep... Umm... wait...

Quote:
But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

I have yet to see a major god that actually gives a s**t about women... (no offense intended, hope at least the atheist women/girls around here understood my point).

Quote:
Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception. There is no other way to look at it. Look at it for what it is. Just because its legal doesn't mean its not murder. There is malice involved and the taking of a life. I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....

It's easy for you to say that as a man, isn't it? I can guess you're one, as I don't think any woman in her right minds would ever claim something like that so vehemently.

Case: Your wife has just been raped. Extremely violently. Though she survived and the baby seems to live well, later you both find out that the "baby" is actually 2 babies, one growing somewhere it shouldn't. Your wife is in danger of dying if that baby, which is, by all means, going to be miscarried due to internal bleeding, not taken out. Also, he's too young to live if that happens. Choice: no abortion, baby and wife dies, potentially other baby dies as well, or abortion, the "normal" baby might survive with low chances, wife also survives unharmed. What's it going to be, buster?

Quote:
The only time I think abortion should be legal is if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, illegal. Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant.

Really? Is it so irrelevant?

Case: Young girl, around the middle of high school. Parents poor, lower-class society. Raped. Abortion illegal. Has to carry baby. What's she going to do to feed and raise the baby? How's she going to manage with: money, housing, parental figure, clothes, food, education, etc. Can you answer me that, dude ?

Quote:
However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

One-way thought: so the mother should reap all the consequences of, let's say, her rapist? Check case above.

Quote:
I find it thouroughly incoherent to claim that abortion is not murder, when the fetus has its own genome and metabolism.

So do all living organisms, single-celled included...

Quote:
Call a spade a spade, will you?!? If the unborn fetus is merely a part of the woman's body, why does she need a man to make it?

I thought Jesus's mother didn't need a man... care to rephrase that?

Your appendix is part of your body, but you still need someone to help you if you want to take it out... or put it back in.

Quote:
The worst I can see you legitimately saying without being hipocritical is that the unborn fetus is a saprophyte because it has it's own independent genome, yet is fully dependent on the mother, but this implies life apart from the mother, so you are not willing to admit such.

Mitochondriae have independent genome, but are dependent of host cells. Analogy doesn't hold. Definitions are quite strict, you know?

Quote:
On a similar note, if a human fetus was born in an artificial womb (like in Brave New World: there have been experiments with rats with this in mind) is it its own creature?

Send out the clones... By the way, if you watch "The Island" perhaps you'll stop asking this question.

Quote:
Since you invoked the mystical dude in the sky, Let's go all the way with it. Since this he has the mythical quality of omniscience, he has the wisdom to know the effect on ones life in the case of a miscarraige. Humans don't have that prescience.

So you suggest we go for an absolute (strictly NO abortion) when you also admit you know shit about its future effects... If you were born a few centuries ago, you might have been born as Thomas Aquinas.

Also, God's omniscience doesn't save him from the fact that he IS the greatest abortion provider of all times. Actually, it puts him in an even deeper hole than he is now.

Quote:
Actually, this is the only point descreet enough in the reproduction cycle to not be arbitrary. A single sperm penetrating the wall of an egg is a very specific point in time. Far less arbitrary than the first second and third trimester rules of current abortion practice. What the point of fertilization MEANS is the real question.

OK, so you're saying that you can predict in each case precisely which spermatozoid will fertilize an egg, in order to prove that the factors involved in the process are so numerous that it's mostly arbitrary? Good luck with that !

Quote:
What gives us tthe right to tell this mythical god what the acceptable level of efficiency is? We are less than ants to this god. If god decides the most effecient thing to do is to annihilate us, we can object all we want but we are still ants on the receiving end of a giant can of Raid.

You little insect! How dare you speak like that? (hey, don't fire me, you've called yourself like that!)

Quote:
If that pollen were wasted, I suppose you might have a point. But the 99.999999999999999999999% of the pollen that is not part of fertilization sustains the ecosystm in many ways. Just go ask a colony of bees what they do with it. Actually, the natural world is astonishingly efficient. Nothing goes to waste. Sounds pretty perfect to me.

Theoretically, nothing in general goes to waste, not even the foetuses...

Quote:
So what I think your saying is this, as long as the decision to abort is arrvied at through rational thinking, then you have the right to abort.

That's how Ol' Democracy goes, ya'know... But I doubt I should teach you that Eye-wink

 

It's funny how nobody thinks of these questions, amongst many many more:

- How's a rape-baby going to live, knowing the truth?

- How's the mother/parents going to cope with the stress: physical, mental, financial, etc. ?

- How's the child going to feel when the others around him will almost inevitably find out that he is the son/daughter of a rapist?

- How is the mother going to love the child? And mother may, but how's daddy going to?

- Previous question, but in the case of the family already having other children?

 

The reality is far more complex than most simple minds can think of, dear majority of theists. Given your attitude, and your complete failure to notice the real problems that await the life of an unaborted baby and his/her parents, you will allow me, I hope, to call you simple-minded, won't you?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
When I grow tits and a

When I grow tits and a vagina I'll be entitled to express a relevant opinion on abortion.  In the meantime I'll leave it up to the courts to decide what is and isn't murder.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician wrote: When I

The Patrician wrote:
When I grow tits and a vagina I'll be entitled to express a relevant opinion on abortion. In the meantime I'll leave it up to the courts to decide what is and isn't murder.

 

See, now you, I like.

 

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Tyl3r04 wrote: The only

Tyl3r04 wrote:
The only time I think abortion should be legal is if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, illegal. Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant. All things, including unborn babies should have a chance at life. Now is it murder to abort? I think once it reachs a certain point in the pregnancy yes, that certain point being cognitive thought. However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

 Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant

I won't go into how repugnant this little remark is. Being raped has its own physical and psychological trauma involved.  Becoming pregnant from being raped would make that trauma tenfold, imo.  Denying the woman a choice to terminate the pregnancy is just as bad as the person who denied that woman a right to say no to sex. 

However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Ooh, my favorite!  The whole 'she asked for it' logic.  By suggesting that the baby shouldn't be made to pay the consequence, you're assuming the mother made the decision.  I don't believe decision-making is part of the process in a rape (at least for the person being raped). 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Tyl3r04

pariahjane wrote:

Tyl3r04 wrote:
The only time I think abortion should be legal is if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, illegal. Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant. All things, including unborn babies should have a chance at life. Now is it murder to abort? I think once it reachs a certain point in the pregnancy yes, that certain point being cognitive thought. However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant

I won't go into how repugnant this little remark is. Being raped has its own physical and psychological trauma involved. Becoming pregnant from being raped would make that trauma tenfold, imo. Denying the woman a choice to terminate the pregnancy is just as bad as the person who denied that woman a right to say no to sex.

However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Ooh, my favorite! The whole 'she asked for it' logic. By suggesting that the baby shouldn't be made to pay the consequence, you're assuming the mother made the decision. I don't believe decision-making is part of the process in a rape (at least for the person being raped).

 

Wow, I didn't even notice that part. Thanks for addressing that Jane.

 

I'm sorry to have to do this, but men cannot POSSIBLY understand what it's like to have a uterus and the consequences that come from having one.

I don't pretend that I understand what it's like to have a penis and therefore I don't tell you what to do with it.

Give me and my uterus the same courteousy. 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

I find it thouroughly incoherent to claim that abortion is not murder, when the fetus has its own genome and metabolism.

This argument assumes that (human)genome + metabolism =  human being.  Most pro-choice advocates would say these two things alone are not sufficient to be called a human being.

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
Call a spade a spade, will you?!? If the unborn fetus is merely a part of the woman's body, why does she need a man to make it?

Strawman: I don't think anybody claims that a fetus is merely a part of the woman's body (and therefore can be removed at her choice).  I think most pro-choice advocates claim that a fetus is a fetus, which can be removed at her choice. 

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
The worst I can see you legitimately saying without being hipocritical is that the unborn fetus is a saprophyte because it has it's own independent genome, yet is fully dependent on the mother, but this implies life apart from the mother, so you are not willing to admit such.

This is kind of like a strawman, only weirder.  The
"it's a part of her body" strawman above is one that you commonly hear, but I don't know where this one is coming from.  Maybe it's like a twig man--you think at first it's going to be a strawman, but then  it winds up just looking weird and sinister up close.

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
On a similar note, if a human fetus was born in an artificial womb (like in Brave New World: there have been experiments with rats with this in mind) is it its own creature?

If it is, then the declaration of the unborn fetus in a person's body is arbitrary because there is no difference caused by the choice of the fetus between the natural womb, where it is not a person, and the synthetic womb, where it is.

False analogy.  The central dillema of the abortion rights question is that the rights and needs of the mother are in direct conflict with the rights (if any) and needs of the fetus.  If there's no mother in conflict with the fetus, the essence of the issue changes. 

Questions of humanity and personhood aside, though, think about this question: 

According to the CDC, there are about 1.5 million abortions a year in the U.S.  Even in the best-case scenario, if it were possible to outlaw abortion and have everybody actually follow the law, not fly to Canada (if you're affluent) or have dangerous unregulated abortions (if you're poor), and it were possible to force all those mothers with unwanted pregnancies to carry to term and put their kids up for adoption (which is a *lot* harder emotionally than pro-lifers seem to think: adoption in reality only actually happens in about 4% of unwanted pregnancies brought to term now), how long do you think our society could deal with 1.5 million new orphans every year? Right now there are about 500,000 orphan children in this country waiting to be adopted, and they're already taxing the social services system to the limits.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Wow, I

Maragon wrote:

Wow, I didn't even notice that part. Thanks for addressing that Jane.

I'm sorry to have to do this, but men cannot POSSIBLY understand what it's like to have a uterus and the consequences that come from having one.

I don't pretend that I understand what it's like to have a penis and therefore I don't tell you what to do with it.

Give me and my uterus the same courteousy. 

Exactly!  It is this sort of attitude towards women that I find unacceptable.  I find this attitude is common in religion as well (i.e. - a woman must cover up because it'll be her fault if a man becomes aroused).  Ok, sorry that was off-topic!

If god takes life he's an indian giver


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Yes it IS

Lux wrote:
Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception. There is no other way to look at it. Look at it for what it is. Just because its legal doesn't mean its not murder. There is malice involved and the taking of a life. I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....

If life begins at conception and 70% of conceptions result in miscarriage then your god disregards any value of life, right?  So your god sanctions and commits murder and everything your god does is holy and just therefore any act that parallels your god's actions is just as holy and just.

So where's your problem with abortion?

If you look into your bible it shows that a fetus is just property.  If someone attacks a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry that person has to pay a fine.  If that person kills the woman in the process then the death penatly results since a woman is born and is considered a life in the bible.  So even your bible doesn't agree with your position.

So your position doesn't result from your religion so where does your "rationalization" come from?  I'll shed a tear for the death of a zygote failing to implant on a uterile lining just as I'll shed a tear when I wash my hands killing millions of microbes. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Lux

D-cubed wrote:

Lux wrote:
Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception. There is no other way to look at it. Look at it for what it is. Just because its legal doesn't mean its not murder. There is malice involved and the taking of a life. I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....

If life begins at conception and 70% of conceptions result in miscarriage then your god disregards any value of life, right? So your god sanctions and commits murder and everything your god does is holy and just therefore any act that parallels your god's actions is just as holy and just.

So where's your problem with abortion?

If you look into your bible it shows that a fetus is just property. If someone attacks a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry that person has to pay a fine. If that person kills the woman in the process then the death penatly results since a woman is born and is considered a life in the bible. So even your bible doesn't agree with your position.

So your position doesn't result from your religion so where does your "rationalization" come from? I'll shed a tear for the death of a zygote failing to implant on a uterile lining just as I'll shed a tear when I wash my hands killing millions of microbes.

 

Off topic.

 It seems around here that sometimes the bible is used to bolster an argument and sometimes using the bible to bloster an argument is lambasted. What gives?


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Tyl3r04

pariahjane wrote:

Tyl3r04 wrote:
The only time I think abortion should be legal is if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, illegal. Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant. All things, including unborn babies should have a chance at life. Now is it murder to abort? I think once it reachs a certain point in the pregnancy yes, that certain point being cognitive thought. However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant

I won't go into how repugnant this little remark is. Being raped has its own physical and psychological trauma involved. Becoming pregnant from being raped would make that trauma tenfold, imo. Denying the woman a choice to terminate the pregnancy is just as bad as the person who denied that woman a right to say no to sex.

However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Ooh, my favorite! The whole 'she asked for it' logic. By suggesting that the baby shouldn't be made to pay the consequence, you're assuming the mother made the decision. I don't believe decision-making is part of the process in a rape (at least for the person being raped).

 Perhaps I should have worded that better. I was a little bit angry at another thing atm. There are obviously strenuating circumstances, however. If it was the mothers fault, I see no reason why the baby should have to suffer. Now, I do retract my statement of whether she is raped or not being irrelevant, because it is relevant... but I don't know, I still think that babies, even babies out of rape deserve at least a chance at life. I am sorry for my other statement though.

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Tyl3r04 wrote: pariahjane

Tyl3r04 wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

Tyl3r04 wrote:
The only time I think abortion should be legal is if the baby is endangering the mother. Other than that, illegal. Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant. All things, including unborn babies should have a chance at life. Now is it murder to abort? I think once it reachs a certain point in the pregnancy yes, that certain point being cognitive thought. However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Whether they were raped or not or they made a mistake and couldn't keep their legs shut really is irrelevant

I won't go into how repugnant this little remark is. Being raped has its own physical and psychological trauma involved. Becoming pregnant from being raped would make that trauma tenfold, imo. Denying the woman a choice to terminate the pregnancy is just as bad as the person who denied that woman a right to say no to sex.

However, I think that no matter the cause, all babies should not have to reap the consequences of their mother and should be allowed at a chance to live.

Ooh, my favorite! The whole 'she asked for it' logic. By suggesting that the baby shouldn't be made to pay the consequence, you're assuming the mother made the decision. I don't believe decision-making is part of the process in a rape (at least for the person being raped).

 Perhaps I should have worded that better. I was a little bit angry at another thing atm. There are obviously strenuating circumstances, however. If it was the mothers fault, I see no reason why the baby should have to suffer. Now, I do retract my statement of whether she is raped or not being irrelevant, because it is relevant... but I don't know, I still think that babies, even babies out of rape deserve at least a chance at life. I am sorry for my other statement though.

Apology accepted, thank you.  Smiling

I don't think any reason is really a good reason to terminate a pregnancy.  I'm sure it is a terrible, painful choice to make.  But that choice still has to be made available.  I don't think a few weeks old fetus' life should trump that of its carrier. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It seems around here

Quote:
It seems around here that sometimes the bible is used to bolster an argument and sometimes using the bible to bloster an argument is lambasted. What gives?

I can see you haven't done your maths and logic. I'll explain:

There is a simple method to destroy a claim. Take that claim, assume it is true, and then follow a CORRECT logical path to see what you get. If the result is a contradiction or paradox, then it was reached with that claim considered true. The only way that contradiction or paradox to not appear would be the claim to be false. This is why atheists use Bible quotes to bash theist arguments: they assume that within the context, that theist argument is true. Through correct logical path, they get to a contradiction or paradox, thus meaning that the theist argument can only be false.

Theists can use this method too, to bash atheist arguments. Though I have yet to see some successfully using this method, for reasons obvious to my fellow atheists.

Theists can also use their Bible in pretty much the same way. Though, since they wish to demonstrate the other way around, they must also take the premise the other way around, and start by assuming that their argument is false, and then trying to reach a paradox or contradiction through CORRECT logical path. The problem with the way theists generally use their Bible is that they start by assuming the argument as TRUE. Thus, most theist arguments relying on the Bible are practically circular, and can be reduced to the follosing sentence: "If God exists, he exists." or something on the lines of that.

This process might look a bit biased towards atheists, but most of the theists' concepts are two-sided, and it wasn't atheists that made them that way (see the Easter Island dilemma, for example, a problem that leaves theists with the only righteous possibility to deny the known organization of afterlife, or the free will dilemma). Theism relies on the "dark side" of their concepts not being noticed very easily.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: I can

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

I can see you haven't done your maths and logic.

 

When you start a response with a disparaging remark I have to expend energy to not become defensive. It automatically makes me want to dismiss yor argument and I have to force myself to continue.

 If I knew the answer already I wouldn't have asked the question. Part of "doing my maths and logic" requires asking questions. How is this a problem?

Quote:
 

There is a simple method to destroy a claim. Take that claim, assume it is true, and then follow a CORRECT logical path to see what you get. If the result is a contradiction or paradox, then it was reached with that claim considered true. The only way that contradiction or paradox to not appear would be the claim to be false. This is why atheists use Bible quotes to bash theist arguments: they assume that within the context, that theist argument is true. Through correct logical path, they get to a contradiction or paradox, thus meaning that the theist argument can only be false.

Theists can use this method too, to bash atheist arguments. Though I have yet to see some successfully using this method, for reasons obvious to my fellow atheists.

Theists can also use their Bible in pretty much the same way. Though, since they wish to demonstrate the other way around, they must also take the premise the other way around, and start by assuming that their argument is false, and then trying to reach a paradox or contradiction through CORRECT logical path. The problem with the way theists generally use their Bible is that they start by assuming the argument as TRUE. Thus, most theist arguments relying on the Bible are practically circular, and can be reduced to the follosing sentence: "If God exists, he exists." or something on the lines of that.

This process might look a bit biased towards atheists, but most of the theists' concepts are two-sided, and it wasn't atheists that made them that way (see the Easter Island dilemma, for example, a problem that leaves theists with the only righteous possibility to deny the known organization of afterlife, or the free will dilemma). Theism relies on the "dark side" of their concepts not being noticed very easily.

 

This helps some. I will keep it in mind. 


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The Pro-life definitional

The Pro-life definitional argument:

Life:the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

(dictionary.com)

Properties of the fetus.

1. metabolism: even though it is dependant on the metabolism of the mother, it still has a seperate metabolism.

2. growth: as that the fetus continuously develops, it grows as well. (I know that this is begging the question, but it is accurate.)

3. reproduction: I assume that the definition here means that it will eventually be able to reproduce, ceteris paribus. Otherwise all butterfly grubs that have not developed gametes are not alive either.

4. adaptation to the environment: This is probably where we will differ. I say that the fetus must be able to adapt to the environment or else the slightest change in the mother's diet would result in a still-born.  It's not like the fetus cannot adapt to environmental change, just that the environment doesn't change significantly.

 

The only consistant way I can define the fetus is, quite bluntly,  as an involuntary parasite (it didn't choose to come into existance, either, I might add.) To say otherwise is to tweak the definition of "life" and not bother to tell the rest of us.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The only consistant

Quote:
The only consistant way I can define the fetus is, quite bluntly,  as an involuntary parasite (it didn't choose to come into existance, either, I might add.) To say otherwise is to tweak the definition of "life" and not bother to tell the rest of us.

I will go past you twisting the definition of "parasite" and "foetus" to fit your own argumentative needs, I will also go past the fact that this was disgusting of you, and I will ask: what was the purpose in trying to prove what you consider to have proven? What use would this be to anyone?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


dek
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

The only consistant way I can define the fetus is, quite bluntly, as an involuntary parasite (it didn't choose to come into existance, either, I might add.) To say otherwise is to tweak the definition of "life" and not bother to tell the rest of us.

 

Involuntarily is unneeded as not a single one of use chose to be born. Which leave you with a parasite. Some host choose to keep their parasites, some don't, and most do not even know they have one. It's the host's decision not yours.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Another parley to add to

Another parley to add to the issue is the case of Terri Schiavo.  She was essentially brain dead and could not function without life support.  Technically she was still alive.  The machines work as a host just as a woman does to a zygote.  There are numerous cases of a fetus essentially being being dead in the womb but the fetus still grows since the woman is providing life support to the body while the brain has died.  Would it be unethical to abort the fetus when it has no chance of living outside the host?

Of course there are plenty of time, especially in third trimester abortions (which the antis want to make completely illegal for no reason in particular) when a stillborn fetus has to be removed.  Since the antis classify all abortion as murder then why is it murder to remove something that is already dead?


davidnay
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
This is not going to be a

This is not going to be a popular opinion so get your pickforks and torches ready.

I believe that once the baby is outside of the mother's womb it is then that it should be protected and governed by the laws that man has made. Until then it should be up to the mother to do with it as she sees fit. Whether or not it is murder to abort a baby is just a technicallity which is open to interpretation. It's a harsh line to draw but somebody's gotta draw it.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually I agree and think

Actually I agree and think most of us on here would too (at least as far as how the law should be.)


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
With the caveat that, since

With the caveat that, since a foetus has a highly probable chance of survival ex utero after six months, we put realistic time limits on it.

Which I believe the law actually does, at least here in the UK anyway. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Yes it IS

Lux wrote:
Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception. There is no other way to look at it. Look at it for what it is. Just because its legal doesn't mean its not murder. There is malice involved and the taking of a life. I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....

So you would say that getting rid of tiny blobs of cells with no brain, no nervous system, no senses, not even visible to the naked eye is murder. By that logic I'm murdering when I pick at a spot, or have a haircut! Why draw the line at conception? Why not an ovum or a sperm? Of course then you would be committing murder every time you had didn't come in a vagina, or if you're a woman, every time you have your period. And even then most of the sperms wouldn't actually fertilise the ovum, they'd die, only one sperm actually gets to fertilise the egg and yet everytime a man comes he releases millions of the tadpoles. Also, the majority of embryos die naturally barely after conception almost entirely unnoticed.

Embryos are just little blobs of cells, you aren't doing them any harm by getting rid of them. They can't feel pain, nor can they conceptualise their own existence, never mind big concepts of life or death. They don't have brains, or even internal organs, bones, eyeballs anything. And then you have the foetus, admittedly more developed than the embryo. But it will have less intelligence than a street pigeon, will be barely sentient, and cannot think I am a human being, I deserve life, in fact it won't even know what life is, how then can we be doing it a disservice by aborting it? It will be no different from a cat foetus, a dog foetus, a cow foetus.   

I am not saying go round aborting babies at will. But it is the woman's choice. It is especially important under certain circumstances that the right is there. What if the woman was raped? Would she really want to have the child (appeal to emotion I know, but here it is important, emotions are key parts of people's interests when it comes to this subject)? What if she had no income to support a child? What about if the continuation of the pregnancy would put both the woman's life and the foetus' life in jeopardy?

I wrote an essay on abortion in December. I've enhanced many of my ideas since then, they've progressed (my philosophy is always progressing, I discover something new almost daily these days) but it's a good essay nontheless (not quite as good as my animal rights essay). I'll post it on the Philosophy/ psychology forum.


YelloweyEyes
YelloweyEyes's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
i am an atheist and i don't

i am an atheist and i don't believe in abortions.

i do believe it is a form of murder 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is a form of

Abortion is a form of population control that allows us to keep the population of the world down so that we can rape and pillage our planet a bit more without worry about having to share it's resources with another raper and pillager.


tree-sitter
Theist
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course abortion is

Of course abortion is murder....

 

Anytime you take a life before it's time, that's murder!  The truth about it, is that people just want to have sex and not accept the consequences.  It's plain and simply.  

 

I am pro-life.  That means I am against the ending of any life unless it is a matter of life and death.  Of course, a safe form of abortion should be open to those who REALLY need it... not just thouse who don't want to have their kid.  If you are raped or will die if you don't have an abortion then, in that case, it's alright.  But for 99% of the rest of us, it's wrong.  If you don't want kids, fine.  Get your tubes tied, take birth control and were condoms.  Understand that sex is about bringing reproduciton first, pleasure second.  There really is no debate about it.

 

50,000,000 innocent lives have be lost because of abortion... thats in the past 30 years!!!!  The inquisition was evil and killed the same number of people but it was over the course of 5 centerys.   


tree-sitter
Theist
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 oh... and to the

 oh... and to the Christians.

 

You can't say abortion is murder and then allow your nation to bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.  Thats just stupid, man.  Supporting this war is the same as supporting the murder of innocents.  WAKE UP!!!! 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
tree-sitter wrote: Of

tree-sitter wrote:

Of course abortion is murder....

Not if performed within the bounds of the law it isn't. 

Quote:
Anytime you take a life before it's time, that's murder!

No, anytime you take a life before its time outwith the law it's murder.  Otherwise it's lawful killing.

It annoys me when people get this wrong.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
tree-sitter wrote:  oh...

tree-sitter wrote:

 oh... and to the Christians.

 

You can't say abortion is murder and then allow your nation to bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.  Thats just stupid, man.  Supporting this war is the same as supporting the murder of innocents.  WAKE UP!!!! 

 

The reason Amarica is in Iraq is because if we wern't the Muslims would attack us.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I am pro-life. 

Quote:
I am pro-life.  That means I am against the ending of any life unless it is a matter of life and death.  Of course, a safe form of abortion should be open to those who REALLY need it... not just thouse who don't want to have their kid.  If you are raped or will die if you don't have an abortion then, in that case, it's alright.  But for 99% of the rest of us, it's wrong.  If you don't want kids, fine.  Get your tubes tied, take birth control and were condoms.  Understand that sex is about bringing reproduciton first, pleasure second.  There really is no debate about it.

I'm curious... what happens in the case one of the birth control mechanisms fails and conception happens?

Quote:
50,000,000 innocent lives have be lost because of abortion... thats in the past 30 years!!!!  The inquisition was evil and killed the same number of people but it was over the course of 5 centerys.

50 million people killed by the inquisition? Wow, didn't think the number was that high myself.

Oh well... we live in a world where smoking kills (long live the cigars, at least for me), drinking kills, microwaves are bad, HF electromagnetic waves are bad, ... heck, even breathing is bad.

More than 50 million people worldwide are killed yearly in car or plane accidents, several million lives are lost due to terrorist attacks, I won't even try to thiunk about the numbers of lives lost due to improper living conditions that spawn famine and disease... and you worry about abortion...? Good thinking, rummy! You've got my applause!

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The reason Amarica

Quote:
The reason Amarica is in Iraq is because if we wern't the Muslims would attack us.

I doubt the Muslims (please note: this would be a very bad generalization, not all muslims did, but I'll use this in order to link to the post I'm replying to) attacked the USA for no reason at all. Wasn't it... something the USA did? Because it doesn't look to me as if the USA was very legitimate in its actions lately... Lately meaning from the 1950s onwards.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote: ...It has always

Quote:

...It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see a renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.

The suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic- but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past:- one might say that they are blinded by it....

But not so very long ago, less than a hundred years before the Declaration of independence...Vienna was almost taken (by the forces of Islam) and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland...

On a date that ought to be among the most famous in history- September 11, 1683

Hilliare Belloc, The Great Heresies, 1938

 

I sincerely doubt 9-11 was because of something recent. 

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
I sincerely doubt 9-11 was because of something recent.

 

So why not October 10 then? 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
tree-sitter wrote: Of

tree-sitter wrote:

Of course abortion is murder....

 

Anytime you take a life before it's time, that's murder!  The truth about it, is that people just want to have sex and not accept the consequences.  It's plain and simply.  

 

I am pro-life.  That means I am against the ending of any life unless it is a matter of life and death.  Of course, a safe form of abortion should be open to those who REALLY need it... not just thouse who don't want to have their kid.  If you are raped or will die if you don't have an abortion then, in that case, it's alright.  But for 99% of the rest of us, it's wrong.  If you don't want kids, fine.  Get your tubes tied, take birth control and were condoms.  Understand that sex is about bringing reproduciton first, pleasure second.  There really is no debate about it.

And eating is about nutrition first, pleasure second. Think about that next time you pick up a hamburger. It's funny how you condone the use of condoms or vasectomy but not the removal of a little blob of cells from a womb? A blob of cells that cannot feel pain, cannot conceptualise life or death, has less intelligence than a goldfish. It is true that late abortion or early infanticide cause the woman vast amounts of emotional trauma, this should be avoided, early abortion does not if it is chosen willingly. The foetus never thinks 'I don't want to die' indeed it doesn't even know what death is, it doesn't even know what itself is, nor does it know what other people are, nor does it have morals, nor does it have any capacity to communicate or for thought or language, the only thing it has is potential to become a person. I will definately post my essay on the Philosophy board.  

50,000,000 innocent lives have be lost because of abortion... thats in the past 30 years!!!!  The inquisition was evil and killed the same number of people but it was over the course of 5 centerys.   

 


tree-sitter
Theist
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote: tree-sitter

Dave_G wrote:
tree-sitter wrote:

oh... and to the Christians.

 

You can't say abortion is murder and then allow your nation to bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Thats just stupid, man. Supporting this war is the same as supporting the murder of innocents. WAKE UP!!!!

 

The reason Amarica is in Iraq is because if we wern't the Muslims would attack us.

 

Wait... your being sarcastic right?  Iraq has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror... it doesn't even have anything to do with oil since most of our oil comes from south america.  The war in Iraq is about one thing... Hegemony in the middle east and we are all to blame for it.  You, me... all of us are responsable.