Is abortion really wrong?

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

As for when a human beign becomes a human being, it's irrelevant to me. Philosopically speaking we have an infinite number of answers. If we went by when we able to develop memories all the way back to when a zygote develops a circulatory system. All irrelevant to me.

So, if the unborn is a living human being you still think it's OK to kill him/her?

No. The point is that it is irrelevant. Legality isn't based on morality as much as we claim it is. There is a lot of wrong things that are upheld by legality or left ambiguous intentionally. I don't think it is "wrong" that someone would choose to have an abortion, I think it is sad. But if we are to base our laws on what is "right" then we have to standardize morality, hense: facism.

If a large population of our country conciders a persons right to choose to be more important than upholding some subjective moral stance, then it should be protected. Imagine inversely that we lived in a country such as China were you were only allowed a set number of children. Imagine your goverment institutionalizing abortions for mother's who already had children. I imagine you'd be pretty pro-chioce at that moment.

"wrong" has nothing to do with it because "wrong" is not defined. In this "modern" day and age, we can hardly take care of all the people who are alive already. Work on the issues to protect them first. It will be more pro-life than opposing abortions.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

As for when a human beign becomes a human being, it's irrelevant to me. Philosopically speaking we have an infinite number of answers. If we went by when we able to develop memories all the way back to when a zygote develops a circulatory system. All irrelevant to me.

So, if the unborn is a living human being you still think it's OK to kill him/her?

No. The point is that it is irrelevant. Legality isn't based on morality as much as we claim it is. There is a lot of wrong things that are upheld by legality or left ambiguous intentionally. I don't think it is "wrong" that someone would choose to have an abortion, I think it is sad. But if we are to base our laws on what is "right" then we have to standardize morality, hense: facism. You're right doesn't equal my right. And what is right is not determined by democracy. i.e. - if I am 23 years old and we take a vote on how old I am and the vote comes out to be that I am 20, I am not 20. What is right (correct) is not determined my the majority. So if half of our country is feels one way, and the other feels the other way, doesn't it make sense to protect the values of each side?

If a large population of our country conciders a persons right to choose to be more important than upholding some subjective moral stance, then it should be protected. Imagine inversely that we lived in a country such as China were you were only allowed a set number of children. Imagine your goverment institutionalizing abortions for mother's who already had children. I imagine you'd be pretty pro-chioce at that moment.

"wrong" has nothing to do with it because "wrong" is not defined. In this "modern" day and age, we can hardly take care of all the people who are alive already. Work on the issues to protect them first. It will be more pro-life than opposing abortions.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

real life - what would YOU consider an acceptable compromise?

Well, a few pages back I suggested one. Diest replied saying I had not, but it's still there in black and white:

real life wrote:

I'm all for reducing abortion in any way possible.

I've never seen a proposal from the pro-abortion side to reduce the number of abortions in any fashion.

Let's not kid ourselves. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming just to eliminate partial birth abortions in the third trimester.

If the pro-abortion crowd is looking for a compromise, how about if we start with no abortion (except to save the life of the mother, an exception I've always supported) after the unborn's heart is beating?

It would be a good way for the pro-aborts to show they are sincere. But I suspect most of them are not.

I agree, Echi, that would still leave way too many abortions , but it would be a start.

While the phrase 'acceptable compromise' is almost a contradiction in terms , I understand your point and this would be a good place to begin the process of give and take.

Pro-lifers typically consider life to begin at conception and the pro-abortion side resists anything that bans any abortion procedure throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

True, neither side would truly find it acceptable, but as I mentioned to Echi, that is the nature of compromise.

I expect it to be roundly rejected, as the pro-aborts usually have no interest in compromise.

I, on the other hand, believe that protecting even one child is a step in the right direction and am glad to take as many 'baby steps' as the process may require to eventually get where we need to be.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Here is a compromise that may be palatable to you religious types. Lets see What the bible has to say:
"The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).

An embryo does not contain blood until 18-21 days after conception.

Thoughts?

None of you bible thumpers have anything to say to this?

0 Replies

Quote:

Real Life:
If , on your part, the debate seems mindless then I suggest you try giving it some real thought. Your responses seem to indicate you haven't yet done so.

It is not a requirment of this forum to take you seriously should I deem your responses a mockery.

I've noticed that all of the folks that favor abortion have themselves already been born (you havent been born?). It's a lot easier to be reckless and endanger someone else's life than one's own.

Now your making sense. You are 100% correct, you cannot post in this forum and have your say when you are inside a uterus. You are also 100% correct in saying that its easier to be reckless and life endangering when you are floating in baby juice inside your mother (caregiver?, Life preserver?, personel birthing booth?).

If someone could end your life just because you were 'inconvenient' , it is likely you'd have a different opinion.

If they were to chose to end my life (whoever they? are), I would'nt have a say, they would just kill me. So my opinion would be rather irrelivant.

Take a look at the medical facts.

Is there ANY medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being?

Why dont you go and find some evidence for me. Or are you afraid of what you might find

Why do you care about abortion so much? For me that question's easy, cause its no bloody buisness of mine what someone else does to his or her body.

If you feel your anti-abortion position is so strong how and why did abortion become legalized in the first place?

0 Replies

Xenoche wrote:

.........its no bloody buisness of mine what someone else does to his or her body.

The unborn is not part of the mother's body.

From the moment of conception, the unborn has a distinct DNA that does NOT match his/her mother.

Therefore, genetic evidence shows the unborn is not 'part of the mother. '

He/she has a different body, small and admittedly dependent on the mother for protection.

But, medically, it is not 'part' of the mother.

This is why medical doctors consider the unborn to be a separate patient.

Do you have any medical evidence that indicates the unborn is NOT a living human being?

0 Replies

Real Life says:

Quote:

The unborn is not part of the mother's body.

From the moment of conception, the unborn has a distinct DNA that does NOT match his/her mother.
So you believe we should make all abortion illigal, because the concieved has different DNA?
Therefore, genetic evidence shows the unborn is not 'part of the mother. '
Do you believe we should make all abortion illigal because the concieved is not 'part of the mother?'
He/she has a different body, small and admittedly dependent on the mother for protection.

But, medically, it is not 'part' of the mother.

This is why medical doctors consider the unborn to be a separate patient.

Do you have any medical evidence that indicates the unborn is NOT a living human being?
I dont remember actually saying the unborn is not human. Go to page 36 to see me state "the unborn is human".

The way I see it, sure its not "part of the mothers body" but its still her choice. I see NO problems with the current status of abortion, and I never intend to loose a single seconds sleep over it, cause I dont care because its thier life, if someone wants too abort then fine. If someone wants too smoke ciggerettes(like me) and die of lung cancer then fine. If someone wants to eat thier way too obecity and die of heart failure, FINE.

Not even the anti-abortion campaigners with thier billboards of disembowled baby corpses could sway me.
I am a de-humanizing black hole of passification. Evil or Very Mad

How did I get this way?
I was born this way.

Let me rephrase:

It's no bloody buisness of mine what someone does with his/her body and any other enclosed entities within her womb.

0 Replies

Xenoche wrote:

The way I see it, sure its not "part of the mothers body" but its still her choice. I see NO problems with the current status of abortion, and I never intend to loose a single seconds sleep over it, cause I dont care ...

Well, at least you're honest.

0 Replies

I guess I describe intellectual honesty a little differently.

The political position typified by Xenoche is not honest in my estimation. It is contradictory and cowardly.

To equate the unborn who is slashed to pieces by a razor sharp scalpel in a D&C abortion..........

.............or the unborn who is chemically burned to death inside and out by saline solution, having inhaled the saline into the lungs and dying slowly and painfully...............

...............or the baby who is just a few days from delivery that is pulled down the birth canal feet first and completely out except the head, which is then punctured in the back of the lower skull and the brains sucked out with a vacuum in a partial birth abortion..........

........to equate this with someone who takes upon themselves[/b] the risk of smoking and dies of a smoking related illness is simply dishonesty of the highest order.

0 Replies

The more I see and hear from women/girls in situations where this is an issue that is real in their lives, the more I feel confident that this is not a matter of right or wrong at all.

No universal judgement is applicable. It's individual. And it is an individual choice.

Judging will solve nothing. It won't stop unwanted pregnancies. It won't stop confusing situations. It won't stop the abuse of children. It won't stop abortions.

So, while some people have VERY strong feelings about this matter, my honest reaction to all of this is that people need to LAY OFF.

The choices that some make with their children are always going to be enraging. Why should it be any different with fetus'? It isn't.

If people want to crusade for children: it would be far more effective to be a powerhouse of positive energy and support to people, rather than telling them where they are wrong.
Whether that means being there for would-be-parents who are in danger of making poor choices that are destructive to themselves and others, or simply keeping your mouth shut sometimes when you disagree with how they have chosen to their lives: it's up to you.

Those who are pro-lifers have a right to their opinions. I just think their cause is completely back-ass-wards in intent. It is harmful. Rather than being Pro-Kids, they come across as Anti-Love.

It's not very loving to anyone to spread negativity and judgement. It only strengthens the kind of ignorance and pain that lead people to be in situations where "i don't want this child but i'm pregnant" comes in.

There seems to be this idea out there that those who have abortions wanted that for themselves and the fetus growing inside them.
As though little girls dream of growing up and having an abortion.
I find that cases like that are RARE.
More often, a woman/girl finds herself in a confusing situation that she never wanted (consciously) to be in the the first place.
NONE of the options look good.

Do you judge the young girl with a baby by her side, too?
The mother who gives her child away for adoption?

The approach seems all wrong to me.

0 Replies

flushd-
Of course it's an individual choice. No law will ever stop abortion. I agree that we shouldn't judge people. Like you said, that only makes the problems worse. But it should be made as clear as possible that we, as a society, do not support abortion. Keeping it legal sends the wrong message and makes it much less likely that someone in that situation will act responsibly.

0 Replies

echi-
And that is the crux of conflict: We all want our own messages represented foremost in our soceity and in our legal system, but we don't all get it. Such is democracy, eh.

I can understand where you are coming from, and simply disagree. I do not see having abortion legal as a support for abortion, but rather as a support for freedom of choice. I see abortion as a valid choice, as much so as adopting out your own child.

thanks for the respectful reply.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Here is a compromise that may be palatable to you religious types. Lets see What the bible has to say:
"The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).

An embryo does not contain blood until 18-21 days after conception.

Thoughts?

None of you bible thumpers have anything to say to this?

Psalm 139:16:
"Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them"

0 Replies

I know I came across blunt, good, thats the way I like it.

PRO-CHOICE FTW Laughing

Quote:

I guess I describe intellectual honesty a little differently.
Intellectual honesty? Whatever that is. Mabee brutal honesty? Whatever it is, I just call it as I see it.
The political position typified by Xenoche is not honest in my estimation. It is contradictory and cowardly.
Here we go...
To equate the unborn who is slashed to pieces by a razor sharp scalpel in a D&C abortion..........
Honestly, i'm hurting. On the inside...
.............or the unborn who is chemically burned to death inside and out by saline solution, having inhaled the saline into the lungs and dying slowly and painfully...............
I think I might cry...
...............or the baby who is just a few days from delivery that is pulled down the birth canal feet first and completely out except the head, which is then punctured in the back of the lower skull and the brains sucked out with a vacuum in a partial birth abortion..........
I hear violins...
........to equate this with someone who takes upon themselves the risk of smoking and dies of a smoking related illness is simply dishonesty of the highest order.
Oh thats right, thiers a difference between someone who kills himself and the killing of unborn whipper snappers, sorry.

Ok, Real Life, I know you think i'm an idiot, ( dont lie Evil or Very Mad

) and thats fine, most of my time I think i'm an idiot too, so your not the only one.
As for being cowardly, sure, i'm a wimp, so what.
I'm also pretty blatantly ignorant, so what.

Ok, now that all my personal traits are on the table, let me say something, please Sad

.
You see abortion as killing, thats pretty obvious.
I see abortion as an option, thats not to say it isnt killing.

So in a nutshell, yes, I don't see any problem with a mother aborting (killing) thier baby.

Cowardly enough for you.

If I make no sense, tell me and i'll go and never return to this forum again.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

So, while some people have VERY strong feelings about this matter........

Forget about feelings. Let's use our brains for a moment, shall we?

Do you have any medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being?

0 Replies

real life, it's obvious enough.

Here's the first line of wiki's definition:

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

Any idiot can see that a foetus fails all these tests, yet has the potential to become one of these with time and a willing incubator.

0 Replies

Not that I care abuot the definition, but if you were asking for one you got it.

so please stop posting the same thing over and over.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life, it's obvious enough.

Here's the first line of wiki's definition:

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

Any idiot can see that a foetus fails all these tests, yet has the potential to become one of these with time and a willing incubator.

Would "any idiot" consider a fetus in the first and third trimesters as failing those tests equally?

0 Replies

Those in the "third" are certainly getting closer to the time when they will pass.

0 Replies

It would seem that a newborn infant might fail to meet this definition in the eyes of some.

A definition from an internet 'free encylopedia', which anyone can post in, hardly qualifies as medical evidence, does it?

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know