• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abortion - is it wrong?

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
You of course would approve bombing Africa, right?

Becaus if you don´t approve and you are not sending food to hungry children there, then you are not only full of crap but also forcing misery on millions of children because of your denial of reality.

Your grasp of logic explains a lot. Carry on.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
You are welcome to say where does my logic differs. If you don´t wanna argue it, you can take a nap too ;)

The fact that you would equate the two in the first place illustrates that you will/can not comprehend the difference. If you're interested in expanding your understanding of logic though, it would be a good exercise for you to attempt to figure out the difference between aborting a zygote and dropping bombs on African countries. It's a tough one, but with enough work, I have faith you may figure it out.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
The fact that you would equate the two in the first place illustrates that you will/can not comprehend the difference. If you're interested in expanding your understanding of logic though, it would be a good exercise for you to attempt to figure out the difference between aborting a zygote and dropping bombs on African countries. It's a tough one, but with enough work, I have faith you may figure it out.

Between allowing the killings of many unborn babies to allowing the killing of many africans?

The proportion change but we are still talking about killing human life that is/will suffer because one can do nothing about their suffering, so the best thing to do is to just kill them, like old dogs.

edit: And I am not talking that the moral gravity of both is the same, I am saying that the logic used in both reasonings is the same.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Between allowing the killings of many unborn babies to allowing the killing of many africans?

The proportion change but we are still talking about killing human life that is/will suffer because one can do nothing about their suffering, so the best thing to do is to just kill them, like old dogs.

Ah, looks like I spoke too soon.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I think what he means is that you apparently don't care for the women's right to choose, her health, etc.

I just don´t care that the life of her child is "inconvinient" to her. If the life of the mother is at risk, then we are talking. If she just is "too young to be a mother" how it often happens, then I truly think between her "youth" and the entire life of her child, well... I have a very different look into which should be the obvious choice, let´s say that.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I just don´t care that the life of her child is "inconvinient" to her. If the life of the mother is at risk, then we are talking. If she just is "too young to be a mother" how it often happens, then I truly think between her "youth" and the entire life of her child, well... I have a very different look into which should be the obvious choice, let´s say that.
You don't have to convince me of that.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
I just don´t care that the life of her child is "inconvinient" to her. If the life of the mother is at risk, then we are talking. If she just is "too young to be a mother" how it often happens, then I truly think between her "youth" and the entire life of her child, well... I have a very different look into which should be the obvious choice, let´s say that.
A person who does not exist has no moral value, surely? Otherwise we get into ludicrousness.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Abortion is one of those topics that needs to look at others' points of view. If a woman doesn't believe that the embryo or fetus inside her is alive, then she is not going to see abortion the same way as someone who believes that life begins at or right after conception. It is a fact of life. What I believe personally really has no bearing on what others believe.
I am personally pro-life, but that isn't going to suddenly change anyone else's mind.
But I guess the whole conversation isn't really about abortion, really, but when a human becomes a human- at birth or at conception.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Abortion is one of those topics that needs to look at others' points of view. If a woman doesn't believe that the embryo or fetus inside her is alive, then she is not going to see abortion the same way as someone who believes that life begins at or right after conception. It is a fact of life. What I believe personally really has no bearing on what others believe.
I am personally pro-life, but that isn't going to suddenly change anyone else's mind.
But I guess the whole conversation isn't really about abortion, really, but when a human becomes a human- at birth or at conception.

I agree, this is where the converstation really strikes.

I do would say that regardless of the acknowledgement of the fact that the product of the union of papa human and mama human is (ta-da!) a human, abortion is still wrong no matter how makes it.

Killing a slave wasn´t deemed as killing a worthy human, it was deem as killing something practically below animals. We wouldn´t judge slave owners by today´s standards because everyone is a child of it´s time and culture, but still we can look to the past and say killing humans is wrong.

I think the same is true when this humans happen to be unborn.
 
Top