Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Why should a woman be forced to keep a glob of cells inside of her because pro-lifers consider it human?
-
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!
Your view on abortion. Atheist welcome.
- Thread starter S-word
- Start date
Why should a woman be forced to keep a glob of cells inside of her because pro-lifers consider it human?
pray4me
Active Member
If you were on trial for murder see if the jury will buy the "I didn't consider it to be human" argument. Just because you don't see something for what it is doesn't mean it isn't so. A baby that is still forming is still a baby, no less human than you or me. When do you consider a baby human? When the baby's heart begins to beat? When the baby develops fingers and toes? When the baby responds to sound outside the womb? Maybe you think that a baby isn't human until he/she breathes his/her first breath. The baby is already responding by then. Stretching, moving, hearing, feeling pain. What does the word pro-life mean anyway? It means for life, if you are not for life then you are for death. And how can a glob of cells die? How horrible that someone who's body is built for sheltering and protecting could willingly destroy the very life that she was meant to keep safe.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
When it finally gains self awareness, consciousness, sentience, sapience, the capacity for thought and emotion, etc.
So are those who are pro war and pro capital punishment are also pro death since they're obviously not for life, correct?
Who really has the right to make that decision and judgment regarding somebody else's body?
Last edited:
DarkVamp
Ell Oh Ell
My opinion on Abortion lies within individual choice. I do not think i have the right nor the authority to use my view on something to restrict someone else. I support a woman's right to choose as it is not my body.
By the same token, if you swerved off the road to avoid something that you consider human and injure a pedestrian in the process, you won't be getting off scot-free.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that you wouldn't be on trial for murder for performing an abortion anyhow, because the law doesn't consider a fetus to be a person either.
Edit: how did it work out when killers of abortion-providing doctors actually did argue in court that their actions were justified by the fact that they were protecting the lives of innocent babies?
And how horrible that someone whose brain is apparently built for rational decision-making would have that ability taken away by people who think they know better than she does how she should live her life.
Last edited:
As a movement, a group of people discussing abortion laws, "pro-life" is a push to get abortion laws instigated. That's all it is.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I assume we're talking about being on trial for the murder of a person who has already been born, in which case the law is quite clear that it is human.
That's true. Now, all you have to do is show why it is human.
So, a baby that has no brain, arms, legs, lungs, eyes, ears, genitals, etc. is as much human as you or me?
I consider it to be fully human when it can be born and survive outside of its mother.
Which is exactly why everyone is technically pro-life. No one is pro-death. Some people just realize the need for there to be a choice.
Exactly. How can it? I don't think it dies, which is why I don't think some abortions are wrong.
How horrible that someone feels the need to judge others.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
I think this is in the religious sense, i.e. a being with a soul.
Exactly, which is how we can recognize that the definition has been twisted by the term being co-opted by the anti-abortion movement. An actual "pro-life" campaign would concern itself with issues like poverty, disease, capital punishment, and war. Any movement that does not take a stance against threats to life in general is not truly "pro-life", or at best, it is very selective about what life it is "pro".
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Seems to me that the Bible implies that the soul is acquired with the first breath.
It also implies that anything without its own blood is not a living creature.
Fetuses start pumping fluid around their circulatory system around week 5 and don't produce red blood cells until around week 9 to 12.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Exactly..how horrible is it to suspend a womans rights to to use HER brain to decide if she wants to have a baby or not by explaining to her that instead she is meant to use her body as an incubator?.And to bring a child into the world she CAN not care for properly.Then she is told she should have it anyway and "give it away".That its just too bad you should have been "more" careful and not gotten pregnant.So do that..instead of having an abortion as early as 3 weeks.You can have a non surgical abortion up to the 5th week.Its basically an induced miscarrriage.BUT NO>>>YOU are the "incubator" thats your "job".Use your body for 40 weeks to bring an unwanted child into the world.Then give it away if you cant afford to keep it..or you arent prepared to raise a child for whatever reason.
That her body was meant to "protect" that life..deliver a child safely..Then hand the baby over to a social worker never to be seen or heard from again is "horrible" for her.OH yeah..thats right.The dividing cells have trumped her rights to have a choice.Her choices ended when she let herself get pregnant.
You know..they talk about women having "sexual dysfunction" or a lower on average libido than men.This is in part why..She has MUCH more at risk with each sexual encounter she has.Physically and emotionally.
Love
Dallas
Last edited:
pray4me
Active Member
I can't understand how anyone can not see a human baby as being human even in the earliest stages of life. No wait I can, because that gives them the excuse to get rid of that life if it's unwanted. Just because the law doesn't consider it murder to execute as a punishment for crimes doesn't mean it isn't.
Pro-life is not about telling other people how to live their lives. It's about protecting the innocent which cannot protect themselves. No I don't think it's right for anyone to take the lives of abortion doctors and nurses. No more than it is right for those doctors and nurses and the mothers who come to them, to take the lives of innocent babies. If you think about it, the law tells people how to live their lives every day. It tells us we cannot just go out and kill someone because we don't agree with them. We cannot steal because we are poor. The law can tell us that we cannot sell our organs to the highest bidder. We cannot even put our own lives in danger by refusing to wear seatbelts if we follow the law. So why then, can a law not tell mothers not to murder their own children simply because they haven't been born yet?
Pro-life is not about telling other people how to live their lives. It's about protecting the innocent which cannot protect themselves. No I don't think it's right for anyone to take the lives of abortion doctors and nurses. No more than it is right for those doctors and nurses and the mothers who come to them, to take the lives of innocent babies. If you think about it, the law tells people how to live their lives every day. It tells us we cannot just go out and kill someone because we don't agree with them. We cannot steal because we are poor. The law can tell us that we cannot sell our organs to the highest bidder. We cannot even put our own lives in danger by refusing to wear seatbelts if we follow the law. So why then, can a law not tell mothers not to murder their own children simply because they haven't been born yet?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You are flat out wrong.
Here in the USA it is illegal in all 50 states to kill a human baby.
pray4me
Active Member
No it isn't, it's legal to kill a human baby that has not been born yet.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
If it is not born yet it is not a baby.
Period.
Your dislike of this fact is irrelevant.
pray4me
Active Member
Your statement that it is a fact is irrelevant. Your opinion and the opinions of lawmakers does not make fact. Law does not equal fact. What is a fact is that a baby is human in all stages of development, the reason that you do not consider this to be so is because then you can justify what people like you are doing. If you considered an unborn baby to be human then you'd obviously know it is wrong to kill one. Since you seem oblivious to this you can go about your life without guilt or remorse at having done so or supporting the very same thing.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I can think of another one. Because something that doesn't have lungs, eyes, legs, arms, a liver, etc. doesn't really resemble a human in any way at all. You can say it has the potential to become one, but you're being dishonest with yourself if you say you can't see how anyone can view it as not a human at that point.
Yes, it is. It's about telling people that they have to do this particular thing your way.
The innocent what? They're not fully human yet.
Because it's more personal than that. With this view you are failing to see the immense difference between an unborn baby and a human being capable of sustaining itself outside of its mother.
First, the law tells us how to live our lives only in how we interact with others. Generally, I can do whatever I want, as long as I'm not endangering others. I can't murder someone because that's infringing on their rights. Same thing with stealing. As far as seatbelts go, that's because if you get into an accident, you could incur serious injury or death which either your insurance or the other person's might have to pay for, which means we all pay more. It's not because it could negatively affect you, it's because of the possible negative effects on others.
So, we can't tell mothers not to have abortions because it's their body and their life. First, you have to acknowledge the difference when it's a baby that can't survive without you. Then, you realize that it's a lot more complicated than just calling it murder.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Why do you think this is the only reason? I've never had an abortion. I've never even gotten anyone pregnant. There's no reason for me to care. I don't see them as not humans because I want to not care about abortions. I see it that way because it's rational.
No, when they are fully formed (as in able to survive outside of their mother), then they're humans, and at that point it's wrong to kill them.
Again, why would I care? I've never been in the position to have to decide. I'm married, and plan to have kids. If my wife accidentally gets pregnant this year (as opposed to two years from now when we're ready), we'll have the baby. I don't ever expect to have an abortion, so I don't care. This whole line of reasoning of yours is ridiculous and false.