• 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!

each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yet, your actions caused another person to need the use of your body in order to survive.
Irrelevant.

The same could be said of a child who needs a bone marrow donation; we still give the matching parent the right to refuse to donate.

Someone would be justified leaving an unconscious woman lying in the road, because no one is obligated to use their bodies to pick her up and move her to safety?
Possibly. Helping other people at risk to yourself is voluntary.

What if your actions were what led that woman to be in such a dangerous situation in the first place?
What about it?

Going with organ and tissue donation again:

Say a child needs a bone marrow donation. You volunteer, and you're found to be a match, so they end the donor search.

They plan to remove the marrow in 3 separate procedures. After the first one, you decide that you can't do any more.

The marrow they've retrieved isn't enough to save the child's life, and the fact that they stopped the search - because you agreed to donate - means that they can't find another donor in time. Without your two more donations, the child will die.

Even in this case, you still have the right to refuse to continue.

Robbing someone of the consequences of their actions is usually not a good thing.
So you see unplanned/unwanted pregnancy as punishment for sex?

So, if I had previously decided to give someone my kidney, I could afterwards decide to take it back after the operation is complete?
After the operation, it's no longer part of your body.

It isn't like some random baby walked into a woman's uterus against her will.
If the woman wants an abortion, then she doesn't consent to the fetus being there, obviously.

Her actions created life, and therefore, requires a certain level of responsibility.
A level of responsibility that goes away after birth? What's so magical about fetuses that they're entitled to a higher level of responsibility than an actual child?

I don't see how a fetus could not be considered a person.
Well, what are your criteria for personhood?

If nature was left alone to run it's course, it would be just like any other baby.
Your expectation of an outcome does not mean that the outcome has happened before it happens.

If "nature runs its course", a newborn baby may end up speaking Norwegian and solving differential equations. This doesn't mean that the baby - or the fetus that resulted in the baby - speaks Norwegian or can solve differential equations.
 
That's incorrect. God approves of abortion.
For God life is sacred, yes, but from God's perspective the living planet itself as a living entity is what is sacred. Regarding individuals and particularly those that treat the planet as profane, God is indifferent or even antagonistic. Humans as a whole will soon find this out as we destroy more and more elements of this living entity and arrogate everything we can to our limited imagination and purposes. Don't be deluded to think that profession of a belief is going to save you.
 

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
a personal choice or a question of morality?
It's obviously a personal choice. Morals are cultural and time-lined, but we now know that a child is not prepared to make either choice of becoming pregnant or aborting. This alone throws up signals in regards to the possible rapes of both Mary and Aisha and to the foundation of these two Abrahamic sects.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I agree .there lots of reasons.but abortion is killing.

Actually according to the bible, God does NOT consider abortion to be murder. What does God say should happen if a man causes the wife of another man to lose the baby she is carrying? IF God considered the abortion of this fetus to be murder, then surely God would condemn the man who caused the abortion to death. However, according to Exodus 21:22 this is not the case. Instead the punishment is a mere fine, based upon if the husband of the woman who lost the fetus decides he thinks the man who caused the abortion deserves to be punished.

Clearly the God of the bible does not consider a developing fetus with the potential to become a full fledged human being to actually BE a full fledged human being that can be murdered.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Actually according to the bible, God does NOT consider abortion to be murder. What does God say should happen if a man causes the wife of another man to lose the baby she is carrying? IF God considered the abortion of this fetus to be murder, then surely God would condemn the man who caused the abortion to death. However, according to Exodus 21:12 this is not the case. Instead the punishment is a mere fine, based upon if the husband of the woman who lost the fetus decides he thinks the man who caused the abortion deserves to be punished.

Clearly the God of the bible does not consider a developing fetus with the potential to become a full fledged human being to actually BE a full fledged human being that can be murdered.
That would be Exodus 21:22
 

james dixon

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Abortion is a choice between the mother and her doctor. And then again this is not a problem between gay individuals. But is it truly concerns you, adopt one or two or even three, ok
 

HeironymusJones

New Member
Actually no babies are truly aborted and fetuses are only...let me repeat: ONLY...aborted in those cases where there is a direct danger to the mother or some other catastrophic medical emergency. Nearly every abortion conducted is done so during the first trimester when the fetus is nothing more than an insensate, amorphous collection of cells.

So whenever the anti-choice rabble start rambling on about "millions of babies killed every year by abortions" they are either actively lying or unwittingly repeating disinformation. To think that a women, in her ninth month (or even third trimester), all of sudden decides she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore and immediately rushes down to the local abortion clinic to rid herself of that burden is simply not rational. It just doesn't happen and no doctor in the country would perform an abortion under those circumstances. It's also illegal.

The thing is, before Roe v Wade, an estimated 5,000 women died each year in botched "back-alley" abortions, although the number is probably much higher. Thus, while Roe v Wade hasn't resulted in the deaths or "murders" of babies, it has, on the other hand, saved the lives of at least 220,000 women.

Roe v Wade - Saving Lives Since 1973!
 
Last edited:

HeironymusJones

New Member
I find it disappointing to say the least that the anti-choice rabble consists mainly of religious zealots who are so obsessed with "pre-life" and the afterlife they neglect the only life that truly matters: this one. The anti-choice rabble, for all apparent purposes, seem to loathe children and their parents.

This is made glaringly apparently by the fact that these anti-choice zealots are also made up of the very same people who work day and night to slash any and all programs to help the poor, including the most vulnerable among us, our children.

So, my question to those who oppose a women's reproductive autonomy: Why is the welfare and "life" of a fetus more valuable than the welfare of a child?
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Screen Shot 2017-03-04 at 12.21.43 AM.png
It's a question of morality: it's immoral to deny a woman's right to abort.

Would it be moral to kill a toddler because it was inconvenient?

Ironically people in ancient times used to offer up their babies to Baal, the god of prosperity for similar reason Lady wisdom built her house on the highest place in the city (like the temple of Jerusalem) and Lady folly built her house on a high place (like the Baals and similar )
but as Hosea says... 'those who sacrifice idols are like those who kiss cows'
see ---> Hosea and his family, a portrait of grace
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
View attachment 16285

Would it be moral to kill a toddler because it was inconvenient?
... By denying the toddler the use of your body?

A child that's not physically using the body of his or her parent doesn't create the same conflict of rights as occurs in pregnancy (again, assuming we grant rights to the fetus).

Speaking of morality, do you think that forced organ donation is moral?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
a personal choice or a question of morality?
Usually a medical choice.

in God's eyes human life is sacred
Which God? Not the God of the bible, who offers abortion as a way to "prove" a wife has been unfaithful (of course, if she's considered guilty of adultery, she can then be stoned, and Paranoid Husband can then find himself a new 10 year old to wed).

but abortion is killing.
What you lack is biblical, historical, legal, and biological precedent to say such a thing.

for when people of the nations,who do not have law,do by nature the things of the law,these people,not having law,are a law to themselves.they are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts,while their conscience is bearing witness with them,and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused"
people decide for themselves
If you need a heart transplant, do others get to decide for you (assuming you've made your wishes known or identified a Power of Attorney)? Can I just walk into a hospital and decide your care? What if I decide that you accepting a new heart (real or artificial) takes away a vital part of you? What if I say the bible says your soul is essentially in your heart, so you will become soulless if it's removed? Does it matter that it will save your life if you will burn in hell (or something, because your soul was removed, so I don't know how that works in the afterlife)? Should I tell Jesus he was wrong for saying that if a body part causes you to sin, you should cut it out and throw it away, for it was better to be missing some parts and go to heaven or intact and go to hell?

So is cleaning the toilet with Domestos. So is eating meat. So is smacking a mosquito that landed on your arm. So is denying a woman a life-saving abortion. All of these things result in death but 'pro-life' anti-choice people are okay with these things a lot of the time.
Indeed. You don't even have to do anything actively. When your immune system is killing bacteria, you are killing without moving a muscle. (And eating veggies is killing the veggies, LOL.)

However, that the early Christians agreed in rejecting abortion is more generally accepted.[40][41][42][43][44] They condemned it as a serious sin,[45][46] even before ensoulment.[29]While agreeing that abortion was seen as a sin, some writers consider that those Christians viewed early abortion as on the same level as general sexual immorality,[4] or that they saw it as a grave contra-life sin like contraception and sterilization,[5][7] while others hold that it was for them "an evil no less severe and social than oppression of the poor and needy".[6] Even in cases where abortion was seen as more than a sexual crime, the practice was still associated with sexual immorality.[1]"
But since it's not getting their information from the Word of God ...

Yeah, I know. However, I was replying to a certain post and this is in the Religious Debates section. I also feel that the OP is being dog-piled on.
That's like saying an OP is claiming if you drink bleach you will not get infections and the rest of us is claiming it's false and someone whines that the OP "is being dog-piled on".

This is like the thread about blood transfusions: yes, the person him or herself have a right to do what they want with THEIR care, but we should not sanction bad science to make ignorant people happy.

When did women receive the right to kill other people?
From the same book that says you can kill bratty kids.

It isn't like some random baby walked into a woman's uterus against her will.
Well, Christianity notes it DID happen to this ONE chick about 2k years ago ...

So you see unplanned/unwanted pregnancy as punishment for sex?
That only one of the participants has to suffer through?

This alone throws up signals in regards to the possible rapes of both Mary and Aisha and to the foundation of these two Abrahamic sects.
Exactly. It's not like Gabriel asked Mary about her wanting to get knocked up. He was just like, "See you in 9 months, hon."

Would it be moral to kill a toddler because it was inconvenient?
Per the bible, if a child dishonors the parents, the child can be killed.
 

Shrew

Active Member
Each year many unborn babies die because their mothers lack food or/and medical care.
This is a question of morality indeed, but strangely often the people who are against abortion are the same people who are against help for the poor.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Exactly. It's not like Gabriel asked Mary about her wanting to get knocked up. He was just like, "See you in 9 months, hon."
<...>.
Well, actually, he did get her consent. See Luke 1:26-38

Gabriel Predicts Jesus’ Birth
26 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was deeply troubled by this statement, wondering what kind of greeting this could be. 30 Then the angel told her:

Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found favor with God.
31 Now listen:
You will conceive and give birth to a son,
and you will call His name Jesus.
32 He will be great
and will be called the Son of the Most High,
and the Lord God will give Him
the throne of His father David.
33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever,
and His kingdom will have no end.

34 Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

35 The angel replied to her:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore, the holy One to be born
will be called the Son of God.

36 And consider your relative Elizabeth—even she has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called childless. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”

38 “I am the Lord’s slave,” said Mary. “May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel left her.​
 

GerryAllwin

New Member
a personal choice or a question of morality?
To commit an abortion, in the sense usually meant, the intentional killing of an unborn human being ("person"), in the USA is a capital crime. Statutes passed by the Congress of the US, the legislatures of the states or of any subordinate body purporting to grant permission to anyone to kill human beings not yet born are invalid as forbidden by the US Constitution. Article I, sections 9 & 10.
The legislators who pass statutes, the president and governors who approve them, and the judges who uphold them are in rebellion against the law of the land, violators of their oaths of office.
Abortion has been forbidden by the law of Moses, by Judaism and by Christianity from the earliest times of both. Other non-Abrahamic religions either prohibit or strongly discourage abortion.
Until Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, abortion in the common sense was prohibited. There were few prosecutions as murder due to the near-impossibility of proof. The murdered victim’s remains had been destroyed. The only witnesses were participants in the crime. Abortions were perpetrated in secret or under the guise of medical therapy ("therapeutic abortion").
Roe v. Wade was a set-up to head off advances in medical technology that make it possible to prosecute some abortions. Roe is bad law on several counts:
• No actual controversy - the principals Norma McCorvey and a hypothetical abortionist) were not being prosecuted
• No actual controversy - by the time Roe reached the Supreme Court, McCorvey was no longer pregnant, if she ever was
• No actual controversy - McCorvey and her lawyers lied to the courts at each level; McCorvey was not seeking an abortion
McCorvey later repented of her evil and petitioned the Court for a reconsideration in which she admitted under oath that she had lied from the beginning. The Court ignored her.
Even pro-abortion lawyers, legal scholars and activists have denounced Roe as bad law, for they see it as a weak foundation for the legalization of elective abortion. The Court strained to ignore the US Constitution and thousands of years of the Judeo-Christian tradition and laws, thousands of years of legal precedent and principles, instead grasping at straws of paganism that approved of abortion, infanticide, abandonment of infants to wild animals, forced prostitution, forcible rape of captured girls and women, and many other abominable customs.
Abortion, infanticide and abandonment are founded upon the concept of "property in man" (human beings). Slavery is founded upon the concept of property in the labor of another, which is less reprehensible as the slave's life is not supposed to be the slaveowner's, only his labor.
Government is founded for the primary purpose of the protection of the lives of those within its jurisdiction. The greatest degree of protection is to be provided to those least able to defend themselves from aggression.
Pro-abortion apologists occasionally bring up citizenship, which is accorded at birth to those natural born. Citizenship is irrelevant, a red herring, as no one professes that those in country who are not citizens, whether guests, permanent residents or trespassers, may be murdered at will with impunity. The Frenchman, the Chinese, the Brazilian who is within the jurisdiction of the United States or of the states is protected by law against murder, robbery, rape and in his/her property.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
So is cleaning the toilet with Domestos. So is eating meat. So is smacking a mosquito that landed on your arm.
How can you compare a potential human life to toilet bowl bacteria?

How about we just kill you and spare an unborn child. Maybe that child will grow up with respect for human life, I mean, we obviously failed that with you. :)
So is denying a woman a life-saving abortion.
Aw, a classic strategy used by leftists. Just reference an outlier! That proves it! (note sarcasm)

What percentage of abortions are performed because the woman's life is in jeopardy?

I am willing to claim that saving the life of the potential mother warrants the possibility of aborting the unborn child, however, does that mean that you'd be willing to ban all other abortions?

Or, are you only referencing this outlier to support the idea that all abortions should be legal for any reason?

If you are then it is not very convincing.
All of these things result in death but 'pro-life' anti-choice people are okay with these things a lot of the time.
Come on bro.

You talk about "life-saving abortions" as if those are the only ones that take place and the only ones that pro-lifers take issue with.

What a red herring.
Quite frankly, I can't take the 'pro-life' movement seriously since people who espouse it by-and-large seem willing to do all of the above and sometimes worse things as well.
Those who can so easily equate human life with toilet bowl bacteria are the same ones who committed the Holocaust and supported slavery.

The moment we enter into, "It's in my body, therefore I can claim if it is human or not", we are just repeating the same mistakes of the past.

"He is on my property, so I get to decide if he is free or not" or "He is in my country, so I get to decide if he can continue to live or not"

Don't get me wrong Scotsman. I love you to death. So I would never want to kill you.

But I find defending the defenseless a huge priority in my life.
 
Last edited:

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
It's obviously a personal choice. Morals are cultural and time-lined, but we now know that a child is not prepared to make either choice of becoming pregnant or aborting. This alone throws up signals in regards to the possible rapes of both Mary and Aisha and to the foundation of these two Abrahamic sects.
I don't see how that is relevant.

Anyways, two wrongs do not make a right. "Children" are having sex and getting pregnant. Killing an unborn baby won't solve their issues, only exacerbate them.
 
Top