Is abortion really wrong?

"Sincerity" is not the issue.

No doubt, but to assume real life and intrepid are not hypocrites is the big question.

If you wish to impose your religious philosophy on others you don't even know, but ignore the people who are already "living," you miss the point completely.

Talk is cheap.

Chaplin wrote:

If you wish to impose your religious philosophy on others you don't even know, but ignore the people who are already "living," you miss the point completely.

Why do you assert that those who are pro life are wont to ignore those already living?

No doubt some do. I hardly think real life and Intrepid are in that category.

No one has the right to take a life.

You state that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body', however this is incorrect.

From the moment of conception, the unborn has a distinct DNA pattern that DOES NOT match his/her mother's. Therefore it cannot be 'part of the mother's body', (though it is attached and dependent on it.)

They gave birth instead to a perfectly healthy baby. What if they had aborted? Would you still consider it 'useful' ?

So tell us, at what point EXACTLY does the unborn become sufficiently developed to qualify as a human being?

Xenoche, You are right by some 100 percent! Isn't it funny they want to control other people's life? They would show pictures of a growing embryo and say it's wrong to kill a life, but they fail to recognize and show pictures of all the lives already on this planet that are starving to death - or being killed in war zones. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

What does war or starvation have to do with abortion?

Are you using killing elsewhere to justify killing the unborn?

What in the world are you talking about?

Scott777ab wrote:

No one has the right to take a life.

You mean innocent life, right?

Guilty life is whole other thing. You can take plenty of those.

Quote:

You state that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body', however this is incorrect.

From the moment of conception, the unborn has a distinct DNA pattern that DOES NOT match his/her mother's. Therefore it cannot be 'part of the mother's body', (though it is attached and dependent on it.)

If the infants very survival depends on the mothers biological support how can it be that it is not a part of the mothers body. You say that a fetus doesnt share the same DNA, wether-or-not they both share differing DNA, the fetus IS still a part of the mother based on its complete and utter dependance.

The fetus is attached to the woman's body. It is not part of her body.

Quote:

They gave birth instead to a perfectly healthy baby. What if they had aborted? Would you still consider it 'useful' ?

Hind-sight is not a very stable basis for an argument.
In hind-sight, yes it would have been a mistake.
But in saying that the mistake would never had been realised.
I would never force a mother to have a baby with a high probablity of dehiblitating deformity or brain-damage.
This is why its a decision of the mothers to decide what is the best course of action after considering all facts layed before her.

Here we go with the what if's. What if the wrongfully accused had not been put on death row? What if the drunk driver who killed the old lady had not gotten drunk? The fact that YOU would not do something does not mean that YOU are the end authority. Why should the mother make this decision....what about the father?

Quote:

So tell us, at what point EXACTLY does the unborn become sufficiently developed to qualify as a human being?

And you believe its for us to decide? As a human fetus is innatly human,it is already human and will always be human. Asking me to pick a point inwhich it becomes a human being is very difficult.

One thing I would like to ask to help me solve this problem is,at what stage is an un-born able to be self-sustainable?

This is a silly argument. If you agree that the fetus is human, how can you codone killing it? I could ask at what point EXACTLY does a baby become sufficiently developed to qualify as a totally independent person? Ten, fifteen, twenty years?

Quote:

Xenoche, You are right by some 100 percent! Isn't it funny they want to control other people's life? They would show pictures of a growing embryo and say it's wrong to kill a life, but they fail to recognize and show pictures of all the lives already on this planet that are starving to death - or being killed in war zones. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Quote:

What does war or starvation have to do with abortion?

Are you using killing elsewhere to justify killing the unborn?

What in the world are you talking about?

Abortion, war, starvation all share a common denominator, Death.

War and starvation are puzzles a lot harder to solve then the much more local issue of abortion, this is why its a lot easier to save the un-born then it is to save millions of starving and war victoms.

A ballpoint pen is a ballpoint pen.

echi, how distasteful abortion may seem to you is beside the point. Do you think women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to birth, or not?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You state that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body', however this is incorrect.

From the moment of conception, the unborn has a distinct DNA pattern that DOES NOT match his/her mother's. Therefore it cannot be 'part of the mother's body', (though it is attached and dependent on it.)

If the infants very survival depends on the mothers biological support how can it be that it is not a part of the mothers body. You say that a fetus doesnt share the same DNA, wether-or-not they both share differing DNA, the fetus IS still a part of the mother based on its complete and utter dependance.

The fetus is attached to the woman's body. It is not part of her body.

Quote:

Quote:

They gave birth instead to a perfectly healthy baby. What if they had aborted? Would you still consider it 'useful' ?

Hind-sight is not a very stable basis for an argument.
In hind-sight, yes it would have been a mistake.
But in saying that the mistake would never had been realised.
I would never force a mother to have a baby with a high probablity of dehiblitating deformity or brain-damage.
This is why its a decision of the mothers to decide what is the best course of action after considering all facts layed before her.

Here we go with the what if's. What if the wrongfully accused had not been put on death row? What if the drunk driver who killed the old lady had not gotten drunk? The fact that YOU would not do something does not mean that YOU are the end authority. Why should the mother make this decision....what about the father?

This is a silly argument. If you agree that the fetus is human, how can you codone killing it? I could ask at what point EXACTLY does a baby become sufficiently developed to qualify as a totally independent person? Ten, fifteen, twenty years?

Quote:

Abortion, war, starvation all share a common denominator, Death. War and starvation are puzzles a lot harder to solve then the much more local issue of abortion, this is why its a lot easier to save the un-born then it is to save millions of starving and war victoms.

You need a reality check. By saying this, you seem to be dehumanizing life. Death is the end result of all life. Does that cheapen it to the point that babies should be killed for convenience?

Xenoche,


The whole anti-choice reasoning depends on twisting definitions to suit their pre-conceived (mostly) religious notions of right and wrong.