Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

[Sand Dancer]

Some things are always wrong, regardless of any rationalization used attempting to make it right.

The pre meditated killing of a total innocent is one of those things.

There are many simple inexpensive methods of birth control, when two people wind up creating a child neither want, they are guilty of creating the problems you address.

There are ways of solving these problems without killing.

Why is it okay for Yahweh to kill people, including fetuses, but not okay for us? He seems like a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of deity.

 

[james bond]

Conscious and capable of suffering. If I thought the fetus was both of those, I would consider aborting it immoral. Once again, I have no argument for this. It's how I feel. It's what my conscience tells me, and that is what I go by.

How do I know early term fetuses don't suffer? For the same reason that when you crack open an egg and discover that it was fertilized, the chick fetus doesn't start screaming. It doesn't have the necessary nervous system.

Now, you're moving the goal posts. Before, it was a disagreement over when life begins. Now, it has been proven that life begins at conception. It means the fetus has a right to life. Thus, we have Alabama trying to lessen the impact of abortion.

I also presented the study that abortion doesn't have negative consequences, but positive ones for society. The eugenicists like Planned Parenthood have been proven wrong.

 

[james bond]

The ease of abortion has created a generation that isn't responsible when it comes to pregnancy, just kill the baby if pregnancy occurs,

This has been demonstrated by the study I posted above.

 

[james bond]

Why is it okay for Yahweh to kill people, including fetuses, but not okay for us? He seems like a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of deity.

You're putting up a strawman. Just stick to the human killers.

 

[columbus]

You're putting up a strawman. Just stick to the human killers.

Why don't you post this to Christian members?
Members who seem to think that abortion is forbidden by Scripture when it isn't, but lots of killing of humans by humans is morally OK because it's either endorsed by God's Word or not mentioned.

Tom

 

[1213]

That would be random and arbitrary, so obviously not.

I think it is as random and arbitrary as all accepted aborts nowadays.

 

[1213]

...If you understood the Bible you would see that it does not treat fetuses as people.

Can you explain what do you mean with this?

 

[1213]

...characteristics that make human life valuable and special in the first place.

That could be said also about many adult people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain what do you mean with this?

There are quite a few passages and verses that support this. Some have tried to reinterpret them, especially after Roe v. Wade. For example the test of an unfaithful wife is an example of a chemical abortion administered by a priest. To try ad claim otherwise is being disingenuous at best.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your conscience, nor mine has any true relevancy to anyone else.

Yet anti-choice Christians are willing to impose their consciences on all. Doesn't seem too neighborly to me.

Roe v Wade is bad, immoral law.

The conscience of the pregnant woman is all that matters in her decision, not yours. She doesn't care what you consider immoral. You just said that it was irrelevant to others.

You think it is immoral of me to try to have this law changed, and to try and change minds on the matter.

I think it's immoral of you to try to impose your conscience on others, a conscience you just said was irrelevant to them.

Nobody is trying to force Christians to have abortions, but Christians are trying to force everybody to follow their religious preference. Yes, that's immoral to me.

Now, you're moving the goal posts. Before, it was a disagreement over when life begins.

You might have e confused with another poster. I'm uninterested in the definition of when life begins. I've tried to be clear that definitions are irrelevant to moral arguments.

it has been proven that life begins at conception.

An act doesn't become moral or immoral because any given word is applied to it such as life, human, person, etc.. It doesn't matter when you or I say life begins. The act is no more or less immoral whatever your answer.

It means the fetus has a right to life.

The fetus has a right to life when human beings enact and enforce laws to that effect. That's where rights come from, not semantic arguments. Presently, the pregnant woman is the one with the rights, including the right to terminate the pregnancy

 

[Sand Dancer]

You're putting up a strawman. Just stick to the human killers.

Isn't Yahweh your role model?

 

[Sand Dancer]

There are quite a few passages and verses that support this. Some have tried to reinterpret them, especially after Roe v. Wade. For example the test of an unfaithful wife is an example of a chemical abortion administered by a priest. To try ad claim otherwise is being disingenuous at best.

Plus the men who caused a pregnant woman to miscarry is an example. If the fetus died, it was a property crime against the woman's husband. If the woman died, the death penalty was exacted.

 

[shmogie]

Yet anti-choice Christians are willing to impose their consciences on all. Doesn't seem too neighborly to me.



The conscience of the pregnant woman is all that matters in her decision, not yours. She doesn't care what you consider immoral. You just said that it was irrelevant to others.



I think it's immoral of you to try to impose your conscience on others, a conscience you just said was irrelevant to them.

Nobody is trying to force Christians to have abortions, but Christians are trying to force everybody to follow their religious preference. Yes, that's immoral to me.



You might have e confused with another poster. I'm uninterested in the definition of when life begins. I've tried to be clear that definitions are irrelevant to moral arguments.



An act doesn't become moral or immoral because any given word is applied to it such as life, human, person, etc.. It doesn't matter when you or I say life begins. The act is no more or less immoral whatever your answer.



The fetus has a right to life when human beings enact and enforce laws to that effect. That's where rights come from, not semantic arguments. Presently, the pregnant woman is the one with the rights, including the right to terminate the pregnancy

You continue to see this as a religious issue, yet I haven't invoked religion in any form once. Your prejudice and phobia is showing.

I have invoked the Constitution, and other applicable laws.

The pre meditated killing of another is both illegal, and immoral. Because someones conscience says they can kill, their desire isn't validated.

I have used the example of the pre civil war South. A plantation owner believes black slaves are sub human (like an unborn baby), and the law supports his owning them, killing them.

The Abolitionists should have kept their mouths shut when they strongly advocated for freedom of the slaves. They were trying to shove their conscience and religion down the throats of everyone else, and they had no right to do this, correct?

Like the slaves, an unborn baby is a person who is under the total control of another, by a word their life can be snuffed out.

I have every right to demand and advocate for the unborn having the rights the Constitution says is theirs.

I and millions of others have this right and will continue to work toward ending the killing.

 

[shmogie]

Why is it okay for Yahweh to kill people, including fetuses, but not okay for us? He seems like a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of deity.

What you are referencing occurred almost 4,000 years ago, at a specific time, at a specific place, for a specific people.

If you were a perfect being, whose judgement could never be wrong, with a sense of justice that was infallible, and who could never err, I guess you could kill too.

 

[shmogie]

You really want to go there cis-boy?
Tom

On second thought, my queer friend, you are right, I DO NOT want to go there ! !

 

[columbus]

Am I guilty of murder or simply of assault?

Murder.
The kidney isn't an individual. Human, but not a human being.

Thought experiment time!!!

Suppose Bob gets a girl pregnant. He doesn't want to be a parent. But the mother decides that her baby is a gift from God. So Bob is stuck with two decades of child support payments, which he bitterly resents.
Bob tries to undo the consequences of his sex by poisoning his four year old son. But the poison doesn't kill the boy, it just causes total kidney failure. The boy will die without a kidney transplant. And Bob turns out to be the only available tissue match.

However, he refuses. He never wanted the kid in the first place. He just wanted the sex.
Would you approve of forcing him to donate a kidney?


I would. I'd strap him to the guerny and pull out my X-acto knife and cut it out myself if I had to.
What about you(y'all)?

Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus the men who caused a pregnant woman to miscarry is an example. If the fetus died, it was a property crime against the woman's husband. If the woman died, the death penalty was exacted.

Yes,I did not want to overwhelm him. One at a time is my motto too. And there is nothing he general belief that a body is not alive until after the first "breath of life". But your example is one where in many cases the interpretation was changed.

 

[columbus]

You continue to see this as a religious issue, yet I haven't invoked religion in any form once. Your prejudice and phobia is showing.

It might be helpful if anti-feticide rights people got better educated about the issues. Stop making demonstrably false claims like Scripture puts abortion in the same category as murder, when obviously it doesn't.

People who don't see the Bible as a sophisticated moral guide book, like me, get ignored while the knee jerk baby killers respond to poorly informed religious folks.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

It might be helpful if anti-feticide rights people got better educated about the issues. Stop making demonstrably false claims like Scripture puts abortion in the same category as murder, when obviously it doesn't.

People who don't see the Bible as a sophisticated moral guide book, like me, get ignored while the knee jerk baby killers respond to poorly informed religious folks.
Tom

And it would be a good idea if those against abortions did not automatically oppose some groups. Ironically if one is opposed to abortion one should support Planned Parenthood. They do much more than abortions. They prefer prevention rather than abortion. Areas where they exist have lower abortion rates, often largely due to their work to provide birth control for those that need it most.

 

[epronovost]

Murder.
The kidney isn't an individual. Human, but not a human being.

I agree with you that the kidney, while human and alive isn't an individual. In my opinion a human being is defined first and foremost by his mind. If you have a mind and are made of human tissue, you are a human being. What's your personnal reasonning behind this distinction?

Suppose Bob gets a girl pregnant. He doesn't want to be a parent. But the mother decides that her baby is a gift from God. So Bob is stuck with two decades of child support payments, which he bitterly resents.
Bob tries to undo the consequences of his sex by poisoning his four year old son. But the poison doesn't kill the boy, it just causes total kidney failure. The boy will die without a kidney transplant. And Bob turns out to be the only available tissue match.

However, he refuses. He never wanted the kid in the first place. He just wanted the sex.
Would you approve of forcing him to donate a kidney?


I would. I'd strap him to the guerny and pull out my X-acto knife and cut it out myself if I had to.
What about you(y'all)?

Tom

While I might like to do such a thingand it's very tempting I admit. No, I'm not in favor of forcing him to donate a kidney. I'm opposed to torture and the death penaly as a method of punishment. The first goal our justice system should be the protection of society not it's avenging. I don't think that a wrong can make a right. Sadly, if we can't convinve Bob to dot if only for his self interest, the boy will most likely die and Bob will have to be condamned for murder and spend most if not all of his life in prison or some simila facility. I don't think that forcing people to donate organs, or blood for that matter, should be allowed. We can't force people to save lives at the detriment of their own. If we don't, what pevents us from treating any criminal or low status individual as some sort of organ bank or "meat shield" for more useful and loved members of society who would need them in such a function. It creates a hierarchy of life between human beings to which I'm opposed.