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.


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

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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!

 

Clearly, abortion is not the only important issue we face today.  I just think it's a lame cop out to say "well, I'll just have my kid when I am ready", ya know?  I mean, if you want to have lots of sex and don't want kids, fine.  But please get fixed because the world is over crowed anyways.  You can't have your cake and eat it too... either choose sex with no chance of children or sex with chance of children.

 

I just don't buy the whole line that an abortion is about a womens; reproductive rights, sorry.  Why can't people just be honest with themselves and say "we want to have a lot of sex without the possablity of having children"?

 

I think that there should be restrictions put on abortions.  We should not totally do away with it because that would not solve anything, only make it more unsafe.  I think that if restrictions were put on abortions, then people would simply be more careful.

 

For now, it just seems like this crazy free-for all and no one is being responsable enough to take the proper actions to ensure that no unwanted children are concieved in the first place.

 

Oh, and to answer your question.  I think that if contraception fails then you should still have the kid. 


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

tree-sitter wrote:
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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!

 

Clearly, abortion is not the only important issue we face today.  I just think it's a lame cop out to say "well, I'll just have my kid when I am ready", ya know?  I mean, if you want to have lots of sex and don't want kids, fine.  But please get fixed because the world is over crowed anyways.  You can't have your cake and eat it too... either choose sex with no chance of children or sex with chance of children.

 

I just don't buy the whole line that an abortion is about a womens; reproductive rights, sorry.  Why can't people just be honest with themselves and say "we want to have a lot of sex without the possablity of having children"?

 

I think that there should be restrictions put on abortions.  We should not totally do away with it because that would not solve anything, only make it more unsafe.  I think that if restrictions were put on abortions, then people would simply be more careful.

 

For now, it just seems like this crazy free-for all and no one is being responsable enough to take the proper actions to ensure that no unwanted children are concieved in the first place.

 

Oh, and to answer your question.  I think that if contraception fails then you should still have the kid. 

What if your financial situation isn't one that would be best for a potential child? Bringing up a child in poverty is never a good thing for the child. So you've had sex, you've used contraception but you still get pregnant. Should you have the child? If you were then to wait a few years, find a good man/woman, earn a bit of money, secure everything financially to create the best possible environment for the child to grow up in. Contraception works 99% of the time. How is removing a tiny blob of cells a bad thing? How is it that much different from the morning after pill.

Your point about accepting the consequences is pretty poor. There doesn't have to be consequences. There can be simple enjoyment of sexual intercourse. Why is that a bad thing? I like sex, I'm sure you like sex, I'm sure most people who take part in consensual adult sex enjoys sex. You seem to go from the assumption that people simply enjoying life is a bad thing, that people have to suffer. It comes from the origins of your sadist God who wants to make everyone unhappy and enslave everyone to his sexually repressive values.


tree-sitter
Theist
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
tree-sitter wrote:
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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!

 

Clearly, abortion is not the only important issue we face today. I just think it's a lame cop out to say "well, I'll just have my kid when I am ready", ya know? I mean, if you want to have lots of sex and don't want kids, fine. But please get fixed because the world is over crowed anyways. You can't have your cake and eat it too... either choose sex with no chance of children or sex with chance of children.

 

I just don't buy the whole line that an abortion is about a womens; reproductive rights, sorry. Why can't people just be honest with themselves and say "we want to have a lot of sex without the possablity of having children"?

 

I think that there should be restrictions put on abortions. We should not totally do away with it because that would not solve anything, only make it more unsafe. I think that if restrictions were put on abortions, then people would simply be more careful.

 

For now, it just seems like this crazy free-for all and no one is being responsable enough to take the proper actions to ensure that no unwanted children are concieved in the first place.

 

Oh, and to answer your question. I think that if contraception fails then you should still have the kid.

What if your financial situation isn't one that would be best for a potential child? Bringing up a child in poverty is never a good thing for the child. So you've had sex, you've used contraception but you still get pregnant. Should you have the child? If you were then to wait a few years, find a good man/woman, earn a bit of money, secure everything financially to create the best possible environment for the child to grow up in. Contraception works 99% of the time. How is removing a tiny blob of cells a bad thing? How is it that much different from the morning after pill.

Your point about accepting the consequences is pretty poor. There doesn't have to be consequences. There can be simple enjoyment of sexual intercourse. Why is that a bad thing? I like sex, I'm sure you like sex, I'm sure most people who take part in consensual adult sex enjoys sex. You seem to go from the assumption that people simply enjoying life is a bad thing, that people have to suffer. It comes from the origins of your sadist God who wants to make everyone unhappy and enslave everyone to his sexually repressive values.

 

Getting fixed and abstenence work 100% of the time.  I don't really have that much sympathy for people who are not ready for there children and have them aborted.  My sister just had her first baby.  She was on the pill and her boyfriend wore a condom.  She said it was an incredibly scary experience that she was going to have a kid because she is young and poor.  But she had that child and I respect her for it.  So that whole pity party argument dosen't work in retrospect to a potentail life that is lost through an abortion.

 

You say that God is a sadist because you really have no understanding of God's law.  His law is set in place so that we can live healthy happy lifes and not because he is a sadist.  If your happiness is reliant on how much sex you have then, friend, I feel sorry for you.  I have seen and experienced things so wonderful in this world that I know that sex doesn't really match up.  I have had sex twice... and I regret it.  I thought it was pretty boring and lame... but I guess that had a lot to do with the fact that I was not  making love with my soul mate.  There are a lot of things much more amazing then putting your penis in a hole... sorry for being so crude 


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

tree-sitter wrote:

 

Getting fixed and abstenence work 100% of the time.  I don't really have that much sympathy for people who are not ready for there children and have them aborted.  My sister just had her first baby.  She was on the pill and her boyfriend wore a condom.  She said it was an incredibly scary experience that she was going to have a kid because she is young and poor.  But she had that child and I respect her for it.  So that whole pity party argument dosen't work in retrospect to a potentail life that is lost through an abortion.

Good luck to your sister. However, why should people be made to abstain, sex is something that brings pleasure and there doesn't have to be consequences. When you say getting fixed I assume you mean vasectomy or tubectomy. This takes away the opportunity to have kids later.

tree-sitter wrote:

You say that God is a sadist because you really have no understanding of God's law.  His law is set in place so that we can live healthy happy lifes and not because he is a sadist.  If your happiness is reliant on how much sex you have then, friend, I feel sorry for you.  I have seen and experienced things so wonderful in this world that I know that sex doesn't really match up.  I have had sex twice... and I regret it.  I thought it was pretty boring and lame... but I guess that had a lot to do with the fact that I was not  making love with my soul mate.  There are a lot of things much more amazing then putting your penis in a hole... sorry for being so crude 

True, there are a lot of amazing things in life, music, books, Manchester United winning the Premier League, theatre, philosophy. I enjoy a lot of things in life (without a God). Sex is pleasurable though. Admittedly everyone's first few times are pretty crap. I have done the deed with four girls, two of which were regularly in stable long-term relationships and one of which I really do deeply regret (long and traumatic story, not one for now). My experience aside, I really do not see what is wrong with promiscuity if both/ all partners gain from it, consent to it. If we want to avoid pregnancy, STDs etc then what harm does it do. You seem to have changed your stance from life to potential life. Potential life is not life at the time it is aborted. It will never know any different, it isn't like it will feel cheated later on. There won't be a later on! What makes a zygote any more potential life than a sperm or ovum? It is barely more complex than a sperm or ovum! Both sperm and ovum have potential to become life but we waste them all the time, by coming into condoms (or tissues) or by letting your period happen each month without getting yourself "fertilised" but then if that were the case women would be shooting out babies every 9-10 months!

Also how do define life? Should we not dig up new potatoes because they have the potential to become large baking potatoes? They are life too. In fact there's probably more sentience in a potato than a zygote!! What about culling young bullocks, they have the potential to become bulls. Definately much more sentience and intelligence in a bullock than a foetus! Or do you then define it as human life? Well why should we be so homocentric? Read my essay in the philosophy board. Let me know what you think.


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Every ejaculation is murder

Sorry, duplicate, I got this error and hit refresh:

 

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: comment_last_page() in /home/rrcom/public_html/modules/comment.module on line 1454

Question the religious on their articles of faith long enough and they will want to burn your house down. Faith teaches poor debating skills.


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Every ejaculation is murder

It is murder in the same sense that the fact that only one sperm out of the millions gets to contribute to the egg, the rest die, are filtered and quite often if rumour is true end up in the sock basket.

 

It is murder in the same sense that a period is murder. It is murder in the same sense that leaving a jamjar of tadpoles in the full heat of the sun until it evaporates is murder.

 

It is murder in the same sense that abstinence is murder.

 

It is murder simply because some people want to attach an emotive word to a period of the gestation cycle to bully people.

 

Plus, stamping out controlled abortion just makes it go underground, we have had it underground before now and poorly handled abortions really can cause sterilisation ( more murder!?!?!! )  of the female involved, as well as other more terrible complications.

 Google Bobigny for more information.

 

Question the religious on their articles of faith long enough and they will want to burn your house down. Faith teaches poor debating skills.


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Every ejaculation is murder

{Mod Edit - Triple Post}


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Every ejaculation is murder

{Mod Edit - Triple Post}


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Yeah that error happens

Yeah that error happens everytime you post. Your post still goes through though. Just click back a couple of times.


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Thanks! It was a bit of a

Thanks! It was a bit of a shock. 

 

If they want me to fix that for them, I can. If they aren't bothered with it they can just put in a dummy function with that name that does nothing - this will mask the error ( so long as it isn't expected to return anything that the caller needs ). Or just comment out the call.

 

Question the religious on their articles of faith long enough and they will want to burn your house down. Faith teaches poor debating skills.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
It seemed to start not long

It seemed to start not long after I joined. I don't really care.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
PonkeyDon wrote: Thanks!

PonkeyDon wrote:

Thanks! It was a bit of a shock.

 

If they want me to fix that for them, I can. If they aren't bothered with it they can just put in a dummy function with that name that does nothing - this will mask the error ( so long as it isn't expected to return anything that the caller needs ). Or just comment out the call.

 

This problem may be fixed with the new server, although I am not sure.  I haven't had that error pop up myself, but I have had the site get hung up after I hit "post comment" and I have learned the hard way to copy my posts before I hit "post comment" and to avoid hitting the "post comment" button multiple times when it looks like it might be stuck.  LOL

Thankfully I think Gizmo is working on this for us. 


tree-sitter
Theist
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
tree-sitter wrote:

 

Getting fixed and abstenence work 100% of the time. I don't really have that much sympathy for people who are not ready for there children and have them aborted. My sister just had her first baby. She was on the pill and her boyfriend wore a condom. She said it was an incredibly scary experience that she was going to have a kid because she is young and poor. But she had that child and I respect her for it. So that whole pity party argument dosen't work in retrospect to a potentail life that is lost through an abortion.

Good luck to your sister. However, why should people be made to abstain, sex is something that brings pleasure and there doesn't have to be consequences. When you say getting fixed I assume you mean vasectomy or tubectomy. This takes away the opportunity to have kids later.

tree-sitter wrote:

You say that God is a sadist because you really have no understanding of God's law. His law is set in place so that we can live healthy happy lifes and not because he is a sadist. If your happiness is reliant on how much sex you have then, friend, I feel sorry for you. I have seen and experienced things so wonderful in this world that I know that sex doesn't really match up. I have had sex twice... and I regret it. I thought it was pretty boring and lame... but I guess that had a lot to do with the fact that I was not making love with my soul mate. There are a lot of things much more amazing then putting your penis in a hole... sorry for being so crude

True, there are a lot of amazing things in life, music, books, Manchester United winning the Premier League, theatre, philosophy. I enjoy a lot of things in life (without a God). Sex is pleasurable though. Admittedly everyone's first few times are pretty crap. I have done the deed with four girls, two of which were regularly in stable long-term relationships and one of which I really do deeply regret (long and traumatic story, not one for now). My experience aside, I really do not see what is wrong with promiscuity if both/ all partners gain from it, consent to it. If we want to avoid pregnancy, STDs etc then what harm does it do. You seem to have changed your stance from life to potential life. Potential life is not life at the time it is aborted. It will never know any different, it isn't like it will feel cheated later on. There won't be a later on! What makes a zygote any more potential life than a sperm or ovum? It is barely more complex than a sperm or ovum! Both sperm and ovum have potential to become life but we waste them all the time, by coming into condoms (or tissues) or by letting your period happen each month without getting yourself "fertilised" but then if that were the case women would be shooting out babies every 9-10 months!

Also how do define life? Should we not dig up new potatoes because they have the potential to become large baking potatoes? They are life too. In fact there's probably more sentience in a potato than a zygote!! What about culling young bullocks, they have the potential to become bulls. Definately much more sentience and intelligence in a bullock than a foetus! Or do you then define it as human life? Well why should we be so homocentric? Read my essay in the philosophy board. Let me know what you think.

 

I like you man!

 

I'm pretty sure you can reverse a visectomy (spelt wrong).  I may be wrong on that, but I have heard that you can.  I guess, for me, it's about walking in the spirit.  I think sex can be a wonderful, spritual thing if it's shared with two people who really want to be together for the rest of there lives.  Thats just the way I look at it.  I can't really judge you or say you are wrong for having sex outside of marrage but I still think that it's important to take that childs life, or clump of cells life, into consideration.

 

I really like your question about when life starts.  Thats the foundation for some really intense philisophical descusion... love it.  hmmmm....  I would have to say that you are right.  The life of a baby bull or a seedling is a good example of pontential life.  Clearly a  humans life is more vital but thats still an awesome example.  I would have to say this; that life should not be taken unless it's a matter of life and death.  I think thats what being pro-life is all about.  So, if I need that patato or cow for substanance, then it is lawful (meaning  God's law) for me to take it's life to survive.  In that regard, if a women is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion then I think it would be wrong not to have one but how often is that the case?  I ask this honestly, I would be intrested to see the statistics.  That is why I am not saying that all abortions should be illegal... please don't misunderstand.  Back alley abortions are a cruel and dark past that we should not go back to... lets keep an abortion safe for people.  What I am saying is that there should be certain restrictions placed on aboriton like:

-you can only have so many (lets say three)

-It must always be within the first trimester

-Make them much more expensive

 

Maybe these aren't the best examples of restrictions but the point I am trying to make is this.  50,000,000 abortions in 30yrs is just too much... and how many of those abortions are within a late enough trimester where the fetus has already developed hands and legs?  Restrictions would slow down the number of aboritons and it would cause people to be more careful with there sex lifes.  That would be a good thing all around, don't you think?  If people were more cautious about how much sex they had, it would make it more healthy in the long run.

 

 I would like to finish by touching on your point that we focus to much on human life instead of the rest of life-forms.  I couldn't agree more with you.  To say that a clump of cells is more important then the rest of life is a little crazy to me.  I think it's just as wrong to destroy a forest of old-growth trees then to have an abortion becaue all life is sacred.  Once again, if you need to end a life for your survivle then thats alright but to needlessly destroy a life for any other reason is flat out wrong.

 

I will read your philosopy paper when I get the chance.  Could you post a link on this page? 


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Of course it's murder.

 Of course it's murder. Since when did fanticide not become murder? Everyone knows it's murder. That's why over 80% of women who view ultra sound images prior to an abortion, change their mind.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


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

tree-sitter wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:
tree-sitter wrote:

 

Getting fixed and abstenence work 100% of the time. I don't really have that much sympathy for people who are not ready for there children and have them aborted. My sister just had her first baby. She was on the pill and her boyfriend wore a condom. She said it was an incredibly scary experience that she was going to have a kid because she is young and poor. But she had that child and I respect her for it. So that whole pity party argument dosen't work in retrospect to a potentail life that is lost through an abortion.

Good luck to your sister. However, why should people be made to abstain, sex is something that brings pleasure and there doesn't have to be consequences. When you say getting fixed I assume you mean vasectomy or tubectomy. This takes away the opportunity to have kids later.

tree-sitter wrote:

You say that God is a sadist because you really have no understanding of God's law. His law is set in place so that we can live healthy happy lifes and not because he is a sadist. If your happiness is reliant on how much sex you have then, friend, I feel sorry for you. I have seen and experienced things so wonderful in this world that I know that sex doesn't really match up. I have had sex twice... and I regret it. I thought it was pretty boring and lame... but I guess that had a lot to do with the fact that I was not making love with my soul mate. There are a lot of things much more amazing then putting your penis in a hole... sorry for being so crude

True, there are a lot of amazing things in life, music, books, Manchester United winning the Premier League, theatre, philosophy. I enjoy a lot of things in life (without a God). Sex is pleasurable though. Admittedly everyone's first few times are pretty crap. I have done the deed with four girls, two of which were regularly in stable long-term relationships and one of which I really do deeply regret (long and traumatic story, not one for now). My experience aside, I really do not see what is wrong with promiscuity if both/ all partners gain from it, consent to it. If we want to avoid pregnancy, STDs etc then what harm does it do. You seem to have changed your stance from life to potential life. Potential life is not life at the time it is aborted. It will never know any different, it isn't like it will feel cheated later on. There won't be a later on! What makes a zygote any more potential life than a sperm or ovum? It is barely more complex than a sperm or ovum! Both sperm and ovum have potential to become life but we waste them all the time, by coming into condoms (or tissues) or by letting your period happen each month without getting yourself "fertilised" but then if that were the case women would be shooting out babies every 9-10 months!

Also how do define life? Should we not dig up new potatoes because they have the potential to become large baking potatoes? They are life too. In fact there's probably more sentience in a potato than a zygote!! What about culling young bullocks, they have the potential to become bulls. Definately much more sentience and intelligence in a bullock than a foetus! Or do you then define it as human life? Well why should we be so homocentric? Read my essay in the philosophy board. Let me know what you think.

 

I like you man!

 

I'm pretty sure you can reverse a visectomy (spelt wrong).  I may be wrong on that, but I have heard that you can.  I guess, for me, it's about walking in the spirit.  I think sex can be a wonderful, spritual thing if it's shared with two people who really want to be together for the rest of there lives.  Thats just the way I look at it.  I can't really judge you or say you are wrong for having sex outside of marrage but I still think that it's important to take that childs life, or clump of cells life, into consideration.

 

I really like your question about when life starts.  Thats the foundation for some really intense philisophical descusion... love it.  hmmmm....  I would have to say that you are right.  The life of a baby bull or a seedling is a good example of pontential life.  Clearly a  humans life is more vital but thats still an awesome example.  I would have to say this; that life should not be taken unless it's a matter of life and death.  I think thats what being pro-life is all about.  So, if I need that patato or cow for substanance, then it is lawful (meaning  God's law) for me to take it's life to survive.  In that regard, if a women is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion then I think it would be wrong not to have one but how often is that the case?  I ask this honestly, I would be intrested to see the statistics.  That is why I am not saying that all abortions should be illegal... please don't misunderstand.  Back alley abortions are a cruel and dark past that we should not go back to... lets keep an abortion safe for people.  What I am saying is that there should be certain restrictions placed on aboriton like:

-you can only have so many (lets say three)

-It must always be within the first trimester

-Make them much more expensive

 

Maybe these aren't the best examples of restrictions but the point I am trying to make is this.  50,000,000 abortions in 30yrs is just too much... and how many of those abortions are within a late enough trimester where the fetus has already developed hands and legs?  Restrictions would slow down the number of aboritons and it would cause people to be more careful with there sex lifes.  That would be a good thing all around, don't you think?  If people were more cautious about how much sex they had, it would make it more healthy in the long run.

 

 I would like to finish by touching on your point that we focus to much on human life instead of the rest of life-forms.  I couldn't agree more with you.  To say that a clump of cells is more important then the rest of life is a little crazy to me.  I think it's just as wrong to destroy a forest of old-growth trees then to have an abortion becaue all life is sacred.  Once again, if you need to end a life for your survivle then thats alright but to needlessly destroy a life for any other reason is flat out wrong.

 

I will read your philosopy paper when I get the chance.  Could you post a link on this page? 

With the first two rules you might have some point. I do support the woman's right to choose. You may have a point, the topic does become more tricky as the foetus develops, however I would still advocate abortion up to six months, but seriously limit it after say five. However your last rule is extremely problematic. It gives the wealthier more options. It is by and large the lower classes who need abortion more, bringing up a child in poverty is never a nice experience, in fact it can be harmful to a childs upbringing and later life. To make abortion more expensive would force working class women into undesirable pregnancies. It would create a lot of social problems, or rather add to them. However the rich have less call for it, they can afford to bring up child and by and large they will.


tree-sitter
Theist
Posts: 80
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
With the first two rules


Jacob Cordingley wrote:
With the first two rules you might have some point. I do support the woman's right to choose. You may have a point, the topic does become more tricky as the foetus develops, however I would still advocate abortion up to six months, but seriously limit it after say five. However your last rule is extremely problematic. It gives the wealthier more options. It is by and large the lower classes who need abortion more, bringing up a child in poverty is never a nice experience, in fact it can be harmful to a childs upbringing and later life. To make abortion more expensive would force working class women into undesirable pregnancies. It would create a lot of social problems, or rather add to them. However the rich have less call for it, they can afford to bring up child and by and large they will.

 

Right... I agree with you on that. That came out wrong on my part. The poor should have a little more leeway with having an aboriton because it makes more sense why you would not want more children in poverty. So I agree that the last one was a pretty bad example.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
You can have a reverse

You can have a reverse vasectomy or tubal ligation called a tubal reversal. I think that if anyone could get a free vasectomy or tubal ligation or have it reversed for free then the state might be justified in limiting abortion.

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


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: You can have

Gauche wrote:

You can have a reverse vasectomy or tubal ligation called a tubal reversal. I think that if anyone could get a free vasectomy or tubal ligation or have it reversed for free then the state might be justified in limiting abortion.

 

Archaeology is destroying atheism. 

 

See my last topic, 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  Of course

AL500 wrote:
 Of course it's murder. Since when did fanticide not become murder? Everyone knows it's murder. That's why over 80% of women who view ultra sound images prior to an abortion, change their mind.

Did you mean infanticide?  A zygote is not an infant. 

Please provide me with the backup for your statistic.  Thank you.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Dave_G wrote: Gauche

Dave_G wrote:
Gauche wrote:

You can have a reverse vasectomy or tubal ligation called a tubal reversal. I think that if anyone could get a free vasectomy or tubal ligation or have it reversed for free then the state might be justified in limiting abortion.

 

Archaeology is destroying atheism. 

 

See my last topic, 

What has this got to do with the subject?


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
Dave_G wrote:
Gauche wrote:

You can have a reverse vasectomy or tubal ligation called a tubal reversal. I think that if anyone could get a free vasectomy or tubal ligation or have it reversed for free then the state might be justified in limiting abortion.

 

Archaeology is destroying atheism.

 

See my last topic,

What has this got to do with the subject?

 

I was reffering to the article from the New York Times. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Which article? I see no

Which article? I see no article mentioned.


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
  Jacob Cordingley

 

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
Which article? I see no article mentioned.

 

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7431


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Did you mean infanticide? A

Did you mean infanticide? A zygote is not an infant. Please provide me with the backup for your statistic.

 

 

MY RESPONSE: I don't need statistics, simple logic will show the utter fallacious nature of that statement. First, yes I meant infanticide. Second partial birth abortionists are not dealing with zygotes. The babies are fully developed. The doctor sticks a device in the back of the childs skull and sucks their brains out. I'm glad partial birth abortion has been banned. Third, whether or not a zygote is an infant or not, it is completely irrelevant. They are humans in potential, as we all are, according to evolutionary philosophy. None of us are fully developed. So logically an abortonist cannot make an argument for the very reason that according to the evolutionary hypothesis, no one is a true person, in the sense of being fully developed. Lastly, Hitler made the same kind of argument. He argued that Jews were a sub-race and were not fully developed. Therefore, it was ok, according to him, to kill them. Logically, your argument has no qualitative difference than Hitler's.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
partial birth abortion is a

partial birth abortion is a phrase made up by religious fundys. It's actually called d and e and the purpose is to minimize damage to the woman's cervix.

The vast majority of abortions are performed in the 1st trimester. D and e is performed late in the second or in the third trimester usually when the child is already dead or severely deformed, or the woman's health is threatened, or when teenage girls try to hide the pregnancy from her parents. Banning that procedure doesn't stop late term abortions. It just puts women in danger of suffering damage to the cervix and it fires a shot over the bow of people who support reproductive rights.

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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: partial

Gauche wrote:

partial birth abortion is a phrase made up by religious fundys. It's actually called d and e and the purpose is to minimize damage to the woman's cervix.

I'm just testing to see if I have the quote function figured out.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: Yes it IS

Lux wrote:
Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception. 

I agree. 

lux wrote:
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.

That also is correct.

lux wrote:
 There is malice involved and the taking of a life.[ /quote] agreed. I'm just working on the quote feature here.
lux wrote:
 I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....
  True.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Did you mean

AL500 wrote:

Did you mean infanticide? A zygote is not an infant. Please provide me with the backup for your statistic.

MY RESPONSE: I don't need statistics, simple logic will show the utter fallacious nature of that statement. First, yes I meant infanticide. Second partial birth abortionists are not dealing with zygotes. The babies are fully developed. The doctor sticks a device in the back of the childs skull and sucks their brains out. I'm glad partial birth abortion has been banned. Third, whether or not a zygote is an infant or not, it is completely irrelevant. They are humans in potential, as we all are, according to evolutionary philosophy. None of us are fully developed. So logically an abortonist cannot make an argument for the very reason that according to the evolutionary hypothesis, no one is a true person, in the sense of being fully developed. Lastly, Hitler made the same kind of argument. He argued that Jews were a sub-race and were not fully developed. Therefore, it was ok, according to him, to kill them. Logically, your argument has no qualitative difference than Hitler's.

Again, typical theistic misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has no ultimate goal, there is no ultimate form of human! We as fully formed humans as dinosaurs were dinosaurs, even though dinosaurs "ultimately" evolved to become birds. We are not potential human beings, we are human beings here and now, fully formed, with adult brains, adult genetals, adult bone structures, adult fur. We might not be the next species of the homo genus, but that doesn't mean we aren't fully formed humans here and now.

Foeti, on the other hand are not fully formed human beings, they are barely even partially formed. The potential argument doesn't work. Sperm are potential human beings too. Every sperm has the potential to be a human being too, but even when you come into a fertile vagina and even if conception happens all but one sperm will fertilise the ovum, the rest (millions) die. Every time a woman has a period, she too is killing a potential human being, her ovum. They are all potential humans but you kill them all the time. You're a murderer Al! So am I in that respect. Even after conception it is still very unlikely that the zygote will ever become a human being, a large number of zygotes simply die quite unnoticed. Do you cry for every zygote that has ever died? It doesn't feel pain, it doesn't even have a brain, bones, nerves, skin, hair. It is just a little blob of cells! Yes it has potential, so what at that stage it doesn't have consciousness, you are not doing it a disservice by destroying it.  


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jacob wrote:

Jacob wrote:

Again, typical theistic misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has no ultimate goal, there is no ultimate form of human!

That's pure and unadulterated assumption. Where's your scientific proof there is no ultimate goal in evolution?

Jacob wrote:
We as fully formed humans as dinosaurs were dinosaurs, even though dinosaurs "ultimately" evolved to become birds. We are not potential human beings, we are human beings here and now, fully formed, with adult brains, adult genetals, adult bone structures, adult fur.

How do you know we are fully formed? That's pure assumption! You have 0 scientific basis to postulate such a notion.

Jacob wrote:
We might not be the next species of the homo genus, but that doesn't mean we aren't fully formed humans here and now.

Nor does ot mean we ARE fully formed here and now. Where did the alleged guiding force behind evolution ever tell you that you are now fully formed? Having a brain and genitles does not prove we are fully formed. Your arguments are not scientific. They are assumptions.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]

[NOTE: just be sure the end quote is [ / quote ] with the slash] 

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry. I really messed-up

 Sorry. I really messed-up on the quote function in that last post.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Sorry. I

AL500 wrote:
Sorry. I really messed-up on the quote function in that last post.

 

Not as badly as you messed up on the facts. 

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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 It's really simple. I want

 It's really simple. I want 100% scientific proof that we are fully evolved. Unless such proof can be provided, I will expect the person who postulated such an absurdity to recant and apologize for making such an un-scientific claim.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's really simple.

Quote:
It's really simple. I want 100% scientific proof that we are fully evolved. Unless such proof can be provided, I will expect the person who postulated such an absurdity to recant and apologize for making such an un-scientific claim.

Wow, talk about reverse logic!

While I, too, disagree with the idea that we are fully evolved (I mean, come on, even I could have bred a more efficient human, if I had the necessary time - do NOT ask me how I see it, though, you might get to my darkside), I have to object on the main idea of AL500. Do you want a scientific proof for something that depends on the future? As persons that do not believe in a god, therefore generally don't believe in omniscience and future being fixed, we can only put forward predictions, that is how we THINK the future might be. So to ask for scientific proof on that is a bit absurd, don't you think?

But yes, you are right otherwise.

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
AL500 wrote: It's really

AL500 wrote:
It's really simple. I want 100% scientific proof that we are fully evolved.

Help me out here.  What has this got to do with abortion? 

Quote:
Unless such proof can be provided, I will expect the person who postulated such an absurdity to recant and apologize for making such an un-scientific claim.

 Could you also point out where that claim was made please? 

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


dek
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Lux

AL500 wrote:

Lux wrote:
Yes it IS murder......Life begins at conception.

I agree.

lux wrote:
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.

That also is correct.

lux wrote:
There is malice involved and the taking of a life.

agreed. I'm just working on the quote feature here.

lux wrote:
I love all the "rationalizing" atheists and dems to justify this in their minds.....

True.

 

'Life begins at conception' makes a good catch phrase, but it's misleading. There is 'life', like algae and cats, and there is 'a life', like a human. You are correct in calling it a potential human life, but there are a lot of qualities an embryo has to show before it gets to call itself a human life, sadly a full set of chromosomes isn't one of them.

Since 'a life' is a little murky on this end of the cycle lets look at the other end for a second. What traits do the set of people we call alive have that people we call dead don't? I'm going to go with brain activity. It's simple, easy to measure, and if brain dead is good enough for harvesting organs it's good enough for me.

So if I can use EEG readings to tell when someone died I should be able to tell when someone became alive right?

Well, the first measurable brain activity is not until the 12 week at the earliest. That would still be setting the bar low, really low as continuous activity does not appear until for another 18 weeks. Just for reference about 85% of abortions are preformed at or before the 12th week.

In order to rationalize one would have to arrive at an opinion by erroneous means. Feel free to point out my errors.

What I find slightly more telling is that when you stop playing hypothetical games and look at parents of fetuses with Downs syndrome you find that slightly more than 90% opt to abort. I'm pretty sure that puts a hefty percentage of the 'abortion is murder' people in the hypocrite pile or at the very least question their ability to critically discuses the topic.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  It's really

AL500 wrote:
 It's really simple. I want 100% scientific proof that we are fully evolved. Unless such proof can be provided, I will expect the person who postulated such an absurdity to recant and apologize for making such an un-scientific claim.

I want 100% scientific proof of God's existence.

We are full human beings. There might be a future species that is more intelligent than us. As for evolution having no ultimate goal this is true. Species will gain assets that are useful in their survival, these will be naturally selected for. Species can also lose traits when they are no longer useful. Human beings still have appendices, something that is completely useless and potentially dangerous. We are also prone to back pain later in life, this is because our backs haven't fully adapted to being bipedal. But this doesn't make our species any less developed as our species than our ape like ancestors were fully developed of their species. I am a fully developed human being, or as close to it as I'll ever be, an embryo is not a fully developed human being. An embryo is a blob that is made up of human genes.