Abortion: The Gory Photos Are Real

[hoomer]

The end of wars would be very nice. There are limits even there however, that free governments submit to (or at least say that they do...). That is why it is illegal for a soldier to shoot another combatant with a 50mil bullet and not allowed to kill or demean prisoners.

ha you've informed the CIA of this I hope?????

the CIA are demeaning prisoners...even now......

 

[Melody]

EEWRED: I'd hazard a guess and say you and your friend were one of the exceptions. Many people look for healthy babies, not healthy children.

Call me weird, but if I adopted, I'd go for the teens. Far more interesting than babies. I loved my babies dearly and enjoyed every minute with them, but as conversationalists go, a 2 year old has a limited vocabulary.

 

[Natural Submission]

Murder is illegal intentional killing. Therefore abortion CAN be murder but it might not be since in the right circumstances, it is completely legal. Since the word "murder" is just the same as kill but with some legal and social attachments to it, would you be happen with the phrase "abortion is killing"? For me there is not much difference so I don't see the need to attach murder to abortion to make abortion seem somehow more abhorent because of the stigma that goes with the word murder.

It doesn't matter what man-made "laws" and innovations have been made to allow such attrocities. Anyone who intentionally gets an abortion is completely guilty of abortion in the "eyes" of God, and unless he/she begs for forgiveness with pure faith, they will be punished. Again, ABORTION IS MURDER, anyone that tries to make it legal, is evil and wicked.

 

[Saw11_2000]

What about stem cell research? Are you against that, too? Do you eat meat? Have you seen how they kill the animals? Does that make it wrong or bad? No. I saw the pictures, but will not let them sway my opinion, as they were obviously made to do so. Again, I am not totally pro-choice, but I think in cases of personal emergency, whatever, abortions should be allowed. Yes, it is very unfortunate that it happens, but the mother had to have a reason for it.

 

[Scorn]

It doesn't matter what man-made "laws" and innovations have been made to allow such attrocities. Anyone who intentionally gets an abortion is completely guilty of abortion in the "eyes" of God, and unless he/she begs for forgiveness with pure faith, they will be punished. Again, ABORTION IS MURDER, anyone that tries to make it legal, is evil and wicked.

And did the god fearing masses that practiced abortion for the four millenia while the church was mostly silent on the issue all go to hell? This is extremism at it height! Remember, most churches had an opposing view to yours up to 150 years ago.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

ha you've informed the CIA of this I hope?????

the CIA are demeaning prisoners...even now......

To stay on topic I feel I must repeat myself. We got on the topic of war with a reference to human dignity. My point is very simple and it seems like folks are ignoring that I qualified myself. There are rules in warfare which are in place to honor human dignity. These rules include the Geneva conventions and other international treaties. This does not mean that everyone follows them, but that there will be consequences if abuse is found and proven. We can discuss this in detail in other thread if you like as it is going off topic. I was arguing that humans have dignity that animals do not, which is why abortion would be immoral if the pro-lifers had an argument that life begins at conception. Since I value human dignity of the mother more than the fetus, I have argued that the mother has rights over her body.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Murder is illegal intentional killing. Therefore abortion CAN be murder but it might not be since in the right circumstances, it is completely legal. Since the word "murder" is just the same as kill but with some legal and social attachments to it, would you be happen with the phrase "abortion is killing"? For me there is not much difference so I don't see the need to attach murder to abortion to make abortion seem somehow more abhorent because of the stigma that goes with the word murder.

Thank you so much for elaboration. It is like throwing an egg at a battleship to say "abortion is murder" with no rationale. We have long found ways to justify killing other humans: war (particularly the argument for just war, WWII would be one), capital punishment, self defense, and in law enforcement. Murder is the killing of an innocent person, and the abortion issue is centered on whether or not the fetus is a person, or at least worthy of human dignity. So we must successfully answer the question: what is a person or what are the requirement that one must have to receive human dignity.

First of all, individuality is a requirement. Can we say that a fertilized egg is an individual when at its earliest stages any cell in the zygote is capable of becoming any functioning part? Or do we say that it personhood, which requires a nervous system with some brain functions, which happends in the womb (here we must recognize that potential for personhood is important. So, is it murder to destroy a fetus that has potential for personhood only, and even this potential is on a sliding scale based on the fetus' developmental level?

That is, the more developed the fetus is, the more potential it has for personhood, and the more human dignity it should enjoy. The weakness of this argument is that once we say that abortion becomes murder at some developmental stage, the harder it is to prove at which stage this dignity should be in effect; furthermore, human dignity is not awarded on a sliding scale.

You need a human victim for murder, and murder is an issue because of human dignity. Humans have human dignity, and we can only say that fully born infants are human, before the first breath, I think unfortunately, there is doubt. So it is more than just a stigma, it is inappropriate use of the word, unless you can prove that either life begins at conception or a fetus deserves the rights of fully born humans.

That being said, I will defend that when the fetus can survive outside of the womb, it should be treated as if it were fully born. Partial birth abortion, to my knowledge, is still illegal and rightly so. This conclusion is bolstered by the recent successes of in-vetro surguries as well as the level of development of the late-term fetus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And did the god fearing masses that practiced abortion for the four millenia while the church was mostly silent on the issue all go to hell? This is extremism at it height! Remember, most churches had an opposing view to yours up to 150 years ago.

Will you please provide proof for this claim? The early Christians and Jews were opposed to the Roman practice of exposing infants. I don't know of any Church officially supporting abortion, but I am well aware that Protestant and Catholic women get abortions at the same rate as other women. If there is a Christian tradition of the practive condoned by the Church, I would like to know.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

It doesn't matter what man-made "laws" and innovations have been made to allow such attrocities. Anyone who intentionally gets an abortion is completely guilty of abortion in the "eyes" of God, and unless he/she begs for forgiveness with pure faith, they will be punished. Again, ABORTION IS MURDER, anyone that tries to make it legal, is evil and wicked.

I'm sorry...I missed where someone was pushing for the legalisation of something that is already legal. And as I said to another poster on this subject, saying that someone who doesn't support your veiwpoint has something wrong with them is not a very strong argument.

 

[hoomer]

It doesn't matter what man-made "laws" and innovations have been made to allow such attrocities. Anyone who intentionally gets an abortion is completely guilty of abortion in the "eyes" of God, and unless he/she begs for forgiveness with pure faith, they will be punished. Again, ABORTION IS MURDER, anyone that tries to make it legal, is evil and wicked.

this is the kind of well thought out reasoned argument I LIKE

well done brother muslim

 

[Ardhanariswar]

Yes. And meat tastes good to. Then again, I don't believe in reincarnation.

i bet many canibals think you taste good. does that justify them eating you? no.

"The issue of abortion is fundamentally different from killing animals for food because the argument is centered around human dignity. Animals do not have human dignity. Not only are they killed, but they are trained as pets and denied human freedom because they are not honored with the same dignity as humans. Nevertheless, because they are alive and some people project on animals distinctly human characteristics (emotion, etc), animals are not abused and killed without cause (even hunting has restrictions, animal testing is regulated, and even slaughter houses have rules that provide some animal dignity). Furthermore, animals are given some protection because we don't want ruthless killing of animals (disregard for life) to leak over into disregard for human life."

animals do not have human dignity. no.. they are equal to us because they are life. even thought we do not have the same thinking capacity and physical structure, we are alike because we are citizens of this world. to anyone who sees life with great and equal respect, a human babies life is not greater than that of a fuzzy rabbit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i bet many canibals think you taste good. does that justify them eating you? no.

"The issue of abortion is fundamentally different from killing animals for food because the argument is centered around human dignity. Animals do not have human dignity. Not only are they killed, but they are trained as pets and denied human freedom because they are not honored with the same dignity as humans. Nevertheless, because they are alive and some people project on animals distinctly human characteristics (emotion, etc), animals are not abused and killed without cause (even hunting has restrictions, animal testing is regulated, and even slaughter houses have rules that provide some animal dignity). Furthermore, animals are given some protection because we don't want ruthless killing of animals (disregard for life) to leak over into disregard for human life."

animals do not have human dignity. no.. they are equal to us because they are life. even thought we do not have the same thinking capacity and physical structure, we are alike because we are citizens of this world. to anyone who sees life with great and equal respect, a human babies life is not greater than that of a fuzzy rabbit.

A fuzzy rabit does not have human dignity, as you say, so it cannot have the value of a human baby because the rabbit does not have human dignity. Plants are alive too. For human dignity, one must have at least the potential for individuality and personality, which is why humans are prized more than animals, even if the human is completely retarted or deformed beyond what is required for individuality (hense the use above for potential). No other creature on earth shares the potential that humans have, the rabbit doesn't hold a candle to the baby by any analogy, even if the baby is as deformed as humans come.

EDIT: One of the reasons why we respect animals is that some people project human characteristics onto animals. That is, one may reason that a baby is fuzzy, so is a rabbit, therefore since both are fuzzy then both are valuable. But the baby has more than fuzziness, more than life, it is a human life, and more valuable than any other living thing because of the unique nature of humanity. Another reason we respect animals, and I think rightly so, is because how we treat animals will drift over onto how we treat other humans. That is, if we go around kicking dogs, we may end up kicking kids, etc. We respect them, but eating cattle or any other animal is by no means the same thing as cannabalism because animals don't have human dignity.

 

[BUDDY]

I think that it would be fair to say, that at this point we are going around in circles and presenting no kew evidence or articles for the subject at hand. Whether you agree with it or not your mind obviously will not be changed by what someone posts in a forum, so it seems that the only thing we are doing is upsetting people and making for a very negative, and therefore destructive, environment here. I would suggest that everyone calm down, take some time off and maybe bring this discussion up at a later date. Maybe even temporarily close the thread. That's just my opinion though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that it would be fair to say, that at this point we are going around in circles and presenting no kew evidence or articles for the subject at hand. Whether you agree with it or not your mind obviously will not be changed by what someone posts in a forum, so it seems that the only thing we are doing is upsetting people and making for a very negative, and therefore destructive, environment here. I would suggest that everyone calm down, take some time off and maybe bring this discussion up at a later date. Maybe even temporarily close the thread. That's just my opinion though.

I don't sense a negative vibe. I thought that we were just trying to understand one another. :bonk:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Johnny, BTW, thanks for the pics. They are significantly less grotesque that I am accoustomed to. Blessings, NB

 

[Ardhanariswar]

A fuzzy rabit does not have human dignity, as you say, so it cannot have the value of a human baby because the rabbit does not have human dignity. Plants are alive too. For human dignity, one must have at least the potential for individuality and personality, which is why humans are prized more than animals, even if the human is completely retarted or deformed beyond what is required for individuality (hense the use above for potential). No other creature on earth shares the potential that humans have, the rabbit doesn't hold a candle to the baby by any analogy, even if the baby is as deformed as humans come.

EDIT: One of the reasons why we respect animals is that some people project human characteristics onto animals. That is, one may reason that a baby is fuzzy, so is a rabbit, therefore since both are fuzzy then both are valuable. But the baby has more than fuzziness, more than life, it is a human life, and more valuable than any other living thing because of the unique nature of humanity. Another reason we respect animals, and I think rightly so, is because how we treat animals will drift over onto how we treat other humans. That is, if we go around kicking dogs, we may end up kicking kids, etc. We respect them, but eating cattle or any other animal is by no means the same thing as cannabalism because animals don't have human dignity.

so in other words, its morally alright for humans because are superior in our individualty and personality that we can breed animals just for our stomachs? that we can line em up in a slaughter house and bash them in the head until they are unconscious and skin them and eat thier meat? they dont have human dignity, but they are life. to treat them with disrespect and breed them just for food, its kinda immoral, dont you think?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

so in other words, its morally alright for humans because are superior in our individualty and personality that we can breed animals just for our stomachs? that we can line em up in a slaughter house and bash them in the head until they are unconscious and skin them and eat thier meat? they dont have human dignity, but they are life. to treat them with disrespect and breed them just for food, its kinda immoral, dont you think?

You understand my position well. We have the right to breed animals for food because they do not share in our uniqueness. Plants are life too. If we did not kill and consume other living things, we would all die. Humans have priority due to our dignity. It is better for us to kill animals and plants and eat than for us to collectively starve. Other animals who share the need for nourishment but not human dignity kill for food, too. Wolves eat flesh, and that is perfectly natural. Deer eat just about anything green, and plants are just as alive as other animals. Our bodies break down the living tissue of other living things (plant and animal cells) in our digestion process so that we can make additional cells - we get the building blocks for our bodies by eating stuff, stuff that was once alive. We are fundamentally different from plants, who get their energy from sunlight. Killing for food, therefore is part of life for humans, who cannot get their energy from sunlight but from other living things. You could make up a religion based upon this science: we consume life to make our own, we are all one, we are at peace with the earth. Happy reading

 

[jamaesi]

Because only humans have dignity, right?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

We have the right to breed animals for food because they do not share in our uniqueness.

We breed animals for food because basically we are a predator, (and a lazy one at that) and it's easier to farm domesticated cattle than it is to go out in the forrest, hunt down a wild cow and stab it with a spear. That would be the original basis for breeding animals for food...animals are unique in their own right. Just because a turkey can't split the atom doesn't make it any less unique in the world of the turkey. Sheep have distinctive personalities...as do cows, as do rabbits, as do chickens.
Listen to me go on...and I'm a carnivore.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

what i find funny about some (emphasis on some) christians is that they hate the use of contraceptive but get real angry when a person wants to abort a fetus they could have prevented through contraception. even though i am really pro choice, i still dont think killing anything is right. since we are all completeley and utterly intertwined through the force, killing something would hurt and disrupt that link. i think abortion should be used only if the mother is threatened, the baby is dead, or the baby is not developed enough to survive on its own (early trimesters)