Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is inherently evil for humans.

Exactly how can something be "inherently evil for humans" if it isn't inherently evil generally?

How many African children did you kill through starvation today?

Come again?

 

[Mister Emu]

If you see it as murder when unborn childs are killed, then you MUST care for the safety of this women because they someday WILL have children and keep them.

Future good acts don't excuse present evil ones.

After that, there are fates harder than death. I'd rather be aborted than live in a orphan house or with a mother that doesn't love me and only brought me to existence because the law said so.

Yet, you can't or shouldn't be able to make that choice for another. In the absence of ability to communicate one's will, we have an obligation to safeguard life.

The problem here is that science has nothing to say on when "life" begins, i.e. at what stage of development a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is correctly considered to be "alive". (In this conversation there's been a fairly extensive and rather laborious conversation about the definitions of those words, I'm not going back there.) And I'd wager that even if science was able to define at what point "life" begins, it wouldn't matter to folks like Emu, nor am I necessarily sure that it should.

There is no problem. Science recognizes that a new human life begins at conception. It isn't in discussion, scientifically. The one's to whom the science doesn't matter aren't folks like me.

I would be as staunch an advocate against forced abortion as I am against forced pregnancy, Emu would find a him/herself siding with me on that one.

I'm sure you agree with me on at least 90% of murder being abhorrent.

But the problem with the pro-life group is, that they will never be happy to mean it just for themselves. For this people it's murder and they think they have not even the right but the DUTY to do everything to prevent it, like placing bombs in abortion clinics.

That is far more than merely unfair. I ask that you retract this statement. I do not support, endorse, condone or in any way look positively on heinous acts committed to stop other heinous acts; most pro-life people, in so far as those I have met are representative, agree with me. We have a stance against murder, not one in favor of committing it.

 

[Selinagirl]

Future good acts don't excuse present evil ones.


Yet, you can't or shouldn't be able to make that choice for another. In the absence of ability to communicate one's will, we have an obligation to safeguard life.


There is no problem. Science recognizes that a new human life begins at conception. It isn't in discussion, scientifically. The one's to whom the science doesn't matter aren't folks like me.


I'm sure you agree with me on at least 90% of murder being abhorrent.


That is far more than merely unfair. I ask that you retract this statement. I do not support, endorse, condone or in any way look positively on heinous acts committed to stop other heinous acts; most pro-life people, in so far as those I have met are representative, agree with me. We have a stance against murder, not one in favor of committing it.

O.K., i retract it. It's not that e-mail accounts and mailboxes of abortion doctors are full off murder treatments... I admire every doctor who wants to help woman and goes through this to do it.

 

[Marisa]

I don't think it is necessary to define when life begins, for me it starts when a cell could become a child, so it clearly is killing to abort. But it's not murder, especially you americans should understand that, you have the right to kill somebody only for comeing into your house and don't call that "murder". I see abortion more as self - defense in that case, and like i just said (i meant iit SERIOUS), sometimes it could even be better for the child.

But the problem with the pro-life group is, that they will never be happy to mean it just for themselves. For this people it's murder and they think they have not even the right but the DUTY to do everything to prevent it, like placing bombs in abortion clinics.

To be fair, there hasn't been an abortion clinic bombing in some time. But you are correct, there does seem to be little concern for the quality or quantity of a pregnant woman's life among some in the anti-choice community.

How to define murder is an interesting question, which I hashed out earlier in the thread. Does Germany not have legal concepts such as manslaughter, wherein one may have caused the death of another unintentionally?

 

[Selinagirl]

To be fair, there hasn't been an abortion clinic bombing in some time. But you are correct, there does seem to be little concern for the quality or quantity of a pregnant woman's life among some in the anti-choice community.

How to define murder is an interesting question, which I hashed out earlier in the thread. Does Germany not have legal concepts such as manslaughter, wherein one may have caused the death of another unintentionally?

Yes we have. To make it murder, it has to be planned.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, it's still just theory for me, i'm just 13 and don't even have a boyfriend. But congrats for that long marriage. If i will marry some day, i think i'll do it for the taxes.

Here, we pay a "marriage penalty tax".
Not every couple is subject to it...primarily couple where both work.
Why does government do this to us?
Who knows.....in their mad rush for revenue, they don't think much.

 

[Selinagirl]

Besides, most of the Pro-Life - fryction may hold the laws, but to ask me to treat then "fair" is funny, because "fair" is not how the PLs act. To shout on desperate women in the public, to film them and put the picture on the internet may be legal, but it is NOT FAIR!

 

[Selinagirl]

Here, we pay a "marriage penalty tax".
Not every couple is subject to it...primarily couple where both work.
Why does government do this to us?
Who knows.....in their mad rush for revenue, they don't think much.

Marriage penalty tax? Tell me more about it!

 

[Revoltingest]

Marriage penalty tax? Tell me more about it!

Two separate people will each pay a certain amount of income tax.
But if they marry, the total tax for the couple is higher.
It's been this way at least since we married in 1979.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why we need gay marriage....to make those lucky sonsofguns (&
daughtersofguns) pay their fair share! They've had it too good for too long.

 

[Revoltingest]

Arbitrary and stupid.

Any definition of when life begins for a fetus/baby will be arbitrary.
But "stupid" should be avoided.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The fact of the matter is that murder is a legal term.
Using it to appeal to emotions is dishonest.
How does your deity feel about dishonesty?

"Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation from the Decalogue, since state-led punishment, including capital punishment, was lawful.

Manslaughter is not murder. Neither is state-sanctioned execution in the scriptures.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The most staunchly, hard line christian conservatives I know where horrified by that comment. And the others, but this one seems to have hit a nerve. In all honesty, I know a lot of christians. I live in the bible belt and have for 48 years (and it's a neverending source of amusement for me when folks tell me I just don't know any "true" christians) and I don't know any who won't admit the god of the bible is a bit of an a-hole. Or perhaps it's more honest to say that I don't keep company with any who don't, because goodness knows there are plenty of people here who I think would die before admitting that.

You must live in an unusual section of the Bible Belt. I was sharing the gospel with people this afternoon and yet again, as last week, kept running into Christians and not unbelievers!

 

[JoStories]

The troubling part is my mother actually agreed with him. Never mind trying to reason the "loving, merciful, and benevolent" part with her, the way she sees it, if he (god) wants that child to be born that child will be born.
At times I do wish all my friends are correct when they joke I was just dropped off at someone's doorstep.

My mother did too, shadow. Fortunately, it was my father that helped me arrange an abortion when he learned his father had raped and impregnated me. For the life of me, I can't imagine a more ignorant remark by the man Murdock who supposedly represents Christianity.

 

[JoStories]

I don't think that is possible, my faith, my love for God and His for me pervades everything, or I wish it did. It informs my life, or I wish it did.

I do believe that some people don't quite get what taking Christianity seriously means and think they have to live dour lives.


The penalty here for premeditated murder in cold blood is 25 years to life imprisonment, and I don't have an issue with that. Do I want them to die? No, it is a tragedy the same as when any other murderer dies in the act of murder. Do I care overmuch for the hygienic and safety standards for murderers? Again, no.

You didn't truly answer her most excellent question however. Should women be forced to return to back alley abortions that maim or kill more often than not?

 

[JoStories]

Future good acts don't excuse present evil ones.


Yet, you can't or shouldn't be able to make that choice for another. In the absence of ability to communicate one's will, we have an obligation to safeguard life.


There is no problem. Science recognizes that a new human life begins at conception. It isn't in discussion, scientifically. The one's to whom the science doesn't matter aren't folks like me.


I'm sure you agree with me on at least 90% of murder being abhorrent.


That is far more than merely unfair. I ask that you retract this statement. I do not support, endorse, condone or in any way look positively on heinous acts committed to stop other heinous acts; most pro-life people, in so far as those I have met are representative, agree with me. We have a stance against murder, not one in favor of committing it.

No, actually, science does not recognize that human life begins at conception. It begins its the fetus taking a breath and as much as you would like to twist that, you simply cannot.

 

[columbus]

No, actually, science does not recognize that human life begins at conception. It begins its the fetus taking a breath and as much as you would like to twist that, you simply cannot.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that generally keeps me out of this thread. I makes me want to behave in a disrespectful manner. That would be no more useful than arguing science with 1robin about homosexuality or feargod about evolution. The difference is that I have different expectations from many of the posters in this thread. So I respond differently.
Tom

 

[Marisa]

You must live in an unusual section of the Bible Belt. I was sharing the gospel with people this afternoon and yet again, as last week, kept running into Christians and not unbelievers!

This comment makes me think you haven't a clue what I said. In as much as it is a reply to something I said, it makes no sense.

 

[Mister Emu]

Exactly how can something be "inherently evil for humans" if it isn't inherently evil generally?

Because what is moral for us is designed specifically for us, or rather we are designed for what is moral for us. Which is a truism: we are designed to behave congruent with the manner with which we are designed to behave.

Come again?

You said we are responsible for any foreseeable outcomes of our decisions. It is a reasonable foreseeable outcome that for every x amount of money and time we do not donate to stopping death through hunger a certain amount of people will die as a result, of which a certain percentage will be children(a high one if I am to believe the information I have read).

God is responsible for miscarriage as you are responsible for child deaths due to hunger.

I don't believe either is responsible on any meaningful level.

O.K., i retract it

Besides, most of the Pro-Life - fryction may hold the laws, but to ask me to treat then "fair" is funny, because "fair" is not how the PLs act. To shout on desperate women in the public, to film them and put the picture on the internet may be legal, but it is NOT FAIR!

Thank you for retracting it. As an addendum, I did not mean fair in the sense of not being mean, but fair as in a fair representation, as in actually reflecting the beliefs and ideas held by me and like-minded people.

You didn't truly answer her most excellent question however. Should women be forced to return to back alley abortions that maim or kill more often than not?

I'm pretty sure I did answer the question. To reiterate: I think abortion doctors and recipients should face the same justice system as any other murderer and, while any unnecessary death is tragic, I don't worry overmuch for the workplace safety conditions of murderers.

No, actually, science does not recognize that human life begins at conception. It begins its the fetus taking a breath and as much as you would like to twist that, you simply cannot.

Biology. I recommend you start there. You won't find a single scientific source on the human life cycle saying anything but that it starts at conception. And the idea of the scientific stance being that life begins with the first breath is, well, laughable.

 

[Selinagirl]

Because what is moral for us is designed specifically for us, or rather we are designed for what is moral for us. Which is a truism: we are designed to behave congruent with the manner with which we are designed to behave.


You said we are responsible for any foreseeable outcomes of our decisions. It is a reasonable foreseeable outcome that for every x amount of money and time we do not donate to stopping death through hunger a certain amount of people will die as a result, of which a certain percentage will be children(a high one if I am to believe the information I have read).

God is responsible for miscarriage as you are responsible for child deaths due to hunger.

I don't believe either is responsible on any meaningful level.



Thank you for retracting it. As an addendum, I did not mean fair in the sense of not being mean, but fair as in a fair representation, as in actually reflecting the beliefs and ideas held by me and like-minded people.


I'm pretty sure I did answer the question. To reiterate: I think abortion doctors and recipients should face the same justice system as any other murderer and, while any unnecessary death is tragic, I don't worry overmuch for the workplace safety conditions of murderers.


Biology. I recommend you start there. You won't find a single scientific source on the human life cycle saying anything but that it starts at conception. And the idea of the scientific stance being that life begins with the first breath is, well, laughable.

Like i told you, i agree with you, that life begins with conception, i can't believe you are calling it murder when the women is doing it in a desperate situation, like rape, medical indication, social discrimination of unmarried mothers...

You want to be treated fair by not beeing judged for the deeds of a minority, but you are doing the same by talking about the women and the abortion doctors by calling them murderers allthough there are also juristic definitions for killing people that are NOT called murder. Definitions that include the motives of the killing. To call a doctor murderer who just wants to HELP the women - nobody goes through this what an abortion doctor has to go in the US just for fun, or evrn for money - is surely not part of the definition of murder, so calling them murderers is, in juristical terms, JUST NOT TRUE!

By the way, you are a man. It is funny, that the most prominent and loud Prolifers are people that never will be in the situation to be unwillingly pregnant, not to mention that man are ALLWAYS less empathic than women in nearly every situation. HOW COULD YOU DARE TO JUDGE THEM WHEN YOUR SEX DOESN'T EVEN GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO FEEL LIKE A DESPERATE WOMEN? Women don't abort for fun, nor the doctors do.

And what is your motivation for beeing against abortion? You might say, to save the children. Do you have adopted children or are you working in an orphanage for free? No, you go to demonstrate against abortions. Why? Because you have only religious motivations. Motivations that aren't even social but far more egoist. You don't want to save the children because they are children of god and you love them. I think, you feel nothing for them.

No, you are doing it, because it is said in the Bible that you should do good work. Beeing against abortion is the easiest way for you to get to heaven otr be reborn or whatever. You are as lazy as every man.

Are you at least willing to pay higher taxes to provide childcare, so that more single mums will decide to keep their baby? Or is repression and judging your only way to sink abortion rates?
I don't know how the situation in the US is today, but i know, that in the 90s there was no law for paid maternity leave.

 

[Mister Emu]

Like i told you, i agree with you, that life begins with conception,

My apologies for clarity issues, but the part about beginning of life was not directed at you.

i can't believe you are calling it murder when the women is doing it in a desperate situation, like rape, medical indication, social discrimination of unmarried mothers...

Rape, yes, though I believe that rape should provide for a successful emotional duress as a mitigating factor defense. Medical necessity, no. Social discrimination? Really?

You want to be treated fair by not beeing judged for the deeds of a minority,

No, I don't want to be judged for or associated with the deeds and thoughts of people who are not myself. I do not believe that unreasonable.

but you are doing the same by talking about the women and the abortion doctors by calling them murderers allthough there are also juristic definitions for killing people that are NOT called murder. Definitions that include the motives of the killing. To call a doctor murderer who just wants to HELP the women - nobody goes through this what an abortion doctor has to go in the US just for fun, or evrn for money - is surely not part of the definition of murder, so calling them murderers is, in juristical terms, JUST NOT TRUE!

Of course I am wrong to call them murderers under U.S. law, that was never the intent. The Muslims who stone adulterers and hang homosexuals are also not classed as murderers under their laws. I am speaking from my understanding of a higher law.

As well, I did say I want them to face the same justice system, with those very checks and considerations you brought up.

Addressing the bold statement, what a twisted and corrupted understanding of help we are teaching these days. There are abortions which likely save the life of the mother; they account for less than 3% of abortions. Rather than me using the minority to paint the majority as something else, you are using an extreme minority to defend the majority of a horrid and heinous practice: elective abortion for convenience. That, I proudly call murder.

By the way, you are a man.

Other than the anticipated bigotry I expect to come, what has that to do with anything?

It is funny, that the most prominent and loud Prolifers are people that never will be in the situation to be unwillingly pregnant, not to mention that man are ALLWAYS less empathic than women in nearly every situation.

There it is! By the way, the difference in men and women who identify as pro-life is negligible(50% men and 46% women) in the U.S.

HOW COULD YOU DARE TO JUDGE THEM WHEN YOUR SEX DOESN'T EVEN GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO FEEL LIKE A DESPERATE WOMEN?

Because their actions are evil.

Women don't abort for fun, nor the doctors do.

One certainly hopes not, for that would surely be as close to an irredeemably failed person as you can get.

As long as you don't respect the motivation and feelings of the women and the doctors, you are not more than an FANATIC, trying to press your RELIGIOUS feelings into the laws of a secular state.

Please. Where have I appealed to God to say how the law should be? The prime motivation for 75+% of abortions is that it would negatively effect the lifestyle or plans of recipient. Color me a fanatic if you wish, but no, I don't respect that motivation.