Abortion

[leibowde84]

To stop a beating heart is murder.

That's not true. A "murder" is an unjustified or illegal killing. There are many occasions of justified killing that cannot be considered "murder".

 

[Cephus]

So I suppose someone who depends on a heart transplant, or other transplant - who requires another human's organ to live, must also not be considered fully human?

The other person isn't using it at the time, or didn't you know that?

 

[Cephus]

To stop a beating heart is murder.

And that is a complete lie. Murder is a legal term referring to killing that is not allowed or sanctioned by law. Abortion is legal, hence it cannot be murder. You're using the term for it's emotional effect, you apparently don't care about the reality of the thing.

 

[columbus]

"This is NOT killing. Period."

And that is a complete lie.

The lies in this thread make me angry.

Marisa said that terminating a pregnancy is NOT killing and nobody pointed out that it is demonstrably wrong.

Tom

 

[MormonChainMonteCarlo]

While I find the procedure itself to be revolting on a number of levels, I find it difficult to justify imposition of my own morality on the free agency of others. Plus, the economist in me wants me to maximize health of the woman and lessen societal cost & burden.

 

[Marisa]

"This is NOT killing. Period."

The lies in this thread make me angry.

Marisa said that terminating a pregnancy is NOT killing and nobody pointed out that it is demonstrably wrong.

Tom

Yes, because I actually grasped the meaning the person who posted that stopping a beating heart is murder intended. Get off your high horse.

 

[Marisa]

While I find the procedure itself to be revolting on a number of levels, I find it difficult to justify imposition of my own morality on the free agency of others. Plus, the economist in me wants me to maximize health of the woman and lessen societal cost & burden.

That's all any of us should be asking for. I respect your opinion and appreciate your respect of other's.

 

[catch22]

That's not true. A "murder" is an unjustified or illegal killing. There are many occasions of justified killing that cannot be considered "murder".

This is the truth.

 

[catch22]

And that is a complete lie. Murder is a legal term referring to killing that is not allowed or sanctioned by law. Abortion is legal, hence it cannot be murder. You're using the term for it's emotional effect, you apparently don't care about the reality of the thing.

Who's law? That's the problem for the faithful to God: it would be considered murder by God's standards, but not by human standards. People aren't perfect, I get that, but it's no excuse for not trying.

 

[Cephus]

"This is NOT killing. Period."

The lies in this thread make me angry.

Marisa said that terminating a pregnancy is NOT killing and nobody pointed out that it is demonstrably wrong.

Tom

I quoted and responded to this:

To stop a beating heart is murder.

I don't care what Marisa said, that's not what I responded to. Take your unjustified anger elsewhere.

 

[catch22]

I have a question. Why did everybody told me I will be a mom when I was pregnant of my first to-be child? Nobody ever told me that I was already a mom.

This bias between the born and the unborn seems implicit in our culture. Even my husband got gratulation cards with the text "today you are a father" when our first kid was born.

Ciao

- viole

Struggling with relevance and/or your meaning, so if I don't answer sufficiently forgive me for misunderstanding.

It would be my opinion you are a mother when you become pregnant, whether you are aware of the pregnancy or not. For example, you don't become one at 6-8 weeks when you take the test and find out, because you missed a cycle and only then found out. You don't become a mother when the birth is over. You became one the moment your husband went into you and a child was conceived.

Likewise, he became a father. Why would you use a greeting card to formulate an honest opinion about this topic?

 

[Cephus]

Who's law? That's the problem for the faithful to God: it would be considered murder by God's standards, but not by human standards. People aren't perfect, I get that, but it's no excuse for not trying.

The only law that has any application in the United States is American law. I couldn't care less about your imaginary friends.

 

[catch22]

The only law that has any application in the United States is American law. I couldn't care less about your imaginary friends.

You can care less all you want, a large portion of the American population cares. They vote, too. Ooooh.

 

[catch22]

It doesn't require another human's organs (the uterus is an organ) to live.

So you're against organ donors... or? Because those who get organs, cease to be people?

Shamefully weak criteria.

 

[Cephus]

You can care less all you want, a large portion of the American population cares. They vote, too. Ooooh.

And ooh, the Bible still has no legal power in the United States. So unless you're going to amend the Constitution, you can believe all the crazy nonsense you want, it has no legal validity.

 

[OurCreed]

I understand that people believe this, but it is still irrational.
As a non-theist I believe that this life is all we get. So killing a human being is destroying whatever life that they might have had. And that isn't even my main reason for opposing elective abortion.

On the other hand, most abrahamic religionists believe that each human being is eternal and death is a transition. So whether a fetus dies of natural causes or artificial ones, the result is the same. That is usually referred to as Heaven. And that happens with no risk of a less happy ending to their particular story, because they die utterly innocent.

So while I realise that abortion is sometimes considered a sin I see no rational explanation for the assertion. Since the Bible is extremely unclear on the subject I assume it was made up later.

Tom

There is however, another theory amongst Abrahamic religionists.

You see, the soul is something that is developed over time. We can't say for sure when the soul actually becomes part of the creature.

When a baby is in the womb, it is not only physically developing, but spiritually developing, and the soul that is breathed into the physical object (the baby) becomes living, as God breathes His power of life giving into the baby. Without the soul, there is no life, just a lump of mass.

So abortion would basically be preventing this universal law of the soul entering into the physical body and developing alongside the physical development of the baby child.

 

[Marisa]

There is however, another theory amongst Abrahamic religionists.

You see, the soul is something that is developed over time. We can't say for sure when the soul actually becomes part of the creature.

When a baby is in the womb, it is not only physically developing, but spiritually developing, and the soul that is breathed into the physical object (the baby) becomes living, as God breathes His power of life giving into the baby. Without the soul, there is no life, just a lump of mass.

So abortion would basically be preventing this universal law of the soul entering into the physical body and developing alongside the physical development of the baby child.

You can't say for sure that a soul is a thing, and neither can medical science, and using the phrase "universal law" is meaningless. The legalities of this conversation, i.e. that of rights, should center around what is known. This leaves you as free to develop your opinions about its morality based upon your own beliefs, and act accordingly. This necessarily means that others will not agree with you, and while you need not respect them as people (but it would be really nice if you could), you do need to feel compelled to respect them as people who possess the same right to form their opinions and act on them as you do.

 

[OurCreed]

You can't say for sure that a soul is a thing, and neither can medical science. This legalities of this conversation, i.e. that of rights, should center around what is known. This leaves you as free to develop your opinions about it's morality based upon your own beliefs, and act accordingly. This necessarily means that others will not agree with you, and while you need not respect them as people (but it would be really nice if you could), you do need to feel compelled to respect them as people who possess the same right to form their opinions and act on them as you do.

I'm not talking about science, I am just justifying the reason why religion/doctrine followers abhor abortion.

On page 57, columbus did not understand why religious folks did not like abortion, and I gave him/her an answer.

This isn't about science, just a religious perspective.

 

[Marisa]

I'm not talking about science, I am just justifying the reason why religion/doctrine followers abhor abortion.

You don't need to justify your reason for being against abortion. You simply need to feel compelled to respect the right of other people to make the same judgment you did. Nothing more.

 

[OurCreed]

You don't need to justify your reason for being against abortion. You simply need to feel compelled to respect the right of other people to make the same judgment you did. Nothing more.

When you come into someone's conversation, you are going to get confused.

I'm not justifying myself, I am giving answers to someone else whom I replied to on page 57.