NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.
Why not just drop a tornado on the murderers?

Doth Hellfire spawn considered within the bait of Flame?

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

No, but thank you for the invitation. You are clearly beyond rational discussion.

Pro-choice vs Pro-life hinges on one thing - when is the fetus alive.

I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.
I can't.
You hold personal and religious views that view it as abhorrent and worthy of punishment, and I somehow doubt you would give up your religion.

Pro-choice vs Pro-life hinges on one thing - when is the fetus alive.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

Pro-choice vs Pro-life hinges on one thing - when is the fetus alive.

Nope. It hinges on whether you respect a woman's autonomy.

Nope. It hinges on whether you respect a woman's autonomy.

What about the child's autonomy? You know, all this noise about women's right and its the women's body just comes off sounding selfish to me.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

So just what exactly is the spirit, anyway, that a single fertilized egg and sperm cell can contain one? Doesn't spirituality necessitate things like... multicellular life? And if not, does that mean bacteria have spirits/souls too? How about viruses? Does HIV have a spirit?

I'm just wondering what your perspective is.

Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

Hey man, I'm against abortion also, but the Bible does teach these things called repentance and forgiveness. The thief on the cross was guilty of all the crimes he committed, but Jesus still forgave him. Abortion's not cool, but it doesn't merit eternal damnation.

So just what exactly is the spirit, anyway, that a single fertilized egg and sperm cell can contain one? Doesn't spirituality necessitate things like... multicellular life? And if not, does that mean bacteria have spirits/souls too? How about viruses? Does HIV have a spirit?

I'm just wondering what your perspective is.

My prespective is that anything that can become a living being. A cat, dog, cows, sheep, apes, humans. Have a spirit and soul. A cell is techinally not a living being, because it does not posess the 5 things that living beings have. (trying to remeber college biology here). Virus are unique to this.

Basically anything that is above cellular level, or has the potential to evolve above the cellular level, has a spirit and soul.

Hey man, I'm against abortion also, but the Bible does teach these things called repentance and forgiveness. The thief on the cross was guilty of all the crimes he committed, but Jesus still forgave him. Abortion's not cool, but it doesn't merit eternal damnation.

I beleive it does. An unborn child is one of the purest life forms out there. It has not sinned, it has not done any wrong. Its a wonderful thing to behold. Once we are birthed, then that pureness is gone. But during the 9 month, the child is essentinally pure. Abortion kills that pureness.

My prespective is that anything that can become a living being. A cat, dog, cows, sheep, apes, humans. Have a spirit and soul. A cell is techinally not a living being, because it does not posess the 5 things that living beings have. (trying to remeber college biology here). Virus are unique to this.

Basically anything that is above cellular level, or has the potential to evolve above the cellular level, has a spirit and soul.
so cats can go to heaven or hell?

don't remember hearing about that

there was that disney movie though

I beleive it does. An unborn child is one of the purest life forms out there. It has not sinned, it has not done any wrong. Its a wonderful thing to behold. Once we are birthed, then that pureness is gone. But during the 9 month, the child is essentinally pure. Abortion kills that pureness.
What about original sin? Man is sinful because Adam and Eve sinned.

Abortions tend to weed the filth from the gene pool. We are better off without those children.

Abortions tend to weed the filth from the gene pool. We are better off without those children.
is there anyone important in your life? how would you feel had they been aborted?

What about original sin? Man is sinful because Adam and Eve sinned.

I didn't say it was 100% pure.

I didn't say it was 100% pure.
1% makes all the difference.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

Well I'm not sure this a troll or just an ill advised overactive post on a sensitive subject.
On a side note I'm Catholic and while I don't approve on the frequency abortion is used and the fact that it is also seen as a method of contraception, I understand why someone would have one and wouldn't be-grudge in the way you seem to.
You said that abortion would never be an option? What if the woman got pregnant because she was raped? She did not consent to have sex and yet she still must have a child?
The scar an abortion leaves can also be a significant one. Physically and mentally so I don't think people can just get an abortion and forget about it. That in my opinion is at best mis-informed.
Your opinion is based on the Catholic churches opinion on the subject and therefore is not going to be changed. My adivice would be to look at what the church says on an issue but at least question it in your mind. If we don't we are just lemmings following the orders.

1% makes all the difference.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Yes there is forgivness and repemtion. Yes the way to Heaven is accepting Jesus as our personal savior. But its not enough to just ask for forgivness, and then go do the same thing again. Its not enough to just accept Jesus. We have to live our life the best we can, we have to make a diffrence in society, we have to live our life the way God, Buddha, Moses, whoever, would want us to live our life.

is there anyone important in your life? how would you feel had they been aborted?
I'm not Gen. Donovan, but I figure I'll hop in here with this.
This would be nothing like them being killed after you knew them. You never would have gotten to meet them, because they would never have existed. You wouldn't be able to feel anything either way about it.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

I would like to know what your basing that on

I'm not Gen. Donovan, but I figure I'll hop in here with this.
This would be nothing like them being killed after you knew them. You never would have gotten to meet them, because they would never have existed. You wouldn't be able to feel anything either way about it.
you don't think they would have had some positive influence on your life that no one else could have? what if they helped you stray away from suicide at one point when no one else could have ever done that?

Well I'm not sure this a troll or just an ill advised overactive post on a sensitive subject.
On a side note I'm Catholic and while I don't approve on the frequency abortion is used and the fact that it is also seen as a method of contraception, I understand why someone would have one and wouldn't be-grudge in the way you seem to.
You said that abortion would never be an option? What if the woman got pregnant because she was raped? She did not consent to have sex and yet she still must have a child?
The scar an abortion leaves can also be a significant one. Physically and mentally so I don't think people can just get an abortion and forget about it. That in my opinion is at best mis-informed.
Your opinion is based on the Catholic churches opinion on the subject and therefore is not going to be changed. My adivice would be to look at what the church says on an issue but at least question it in your mind. If we don't we are just lemmings following the orders.


Let me ask you this. Say your father robbed a bank and shot a police. But instead of punishing your dad. We're going to put you in jail and put you on trail. Why are we punishing the child for something he did not have any control over? Its just irrational thoughts. Look I was born with Goldenhar. I was born 2 month early and my chance of survival was slim. Hell I almost died at birth. Don't you think that my mother and father cried? Dont' you think the suffered, seeing me hooked up to machines and tubes? They felt helpness and scarred because of what happened. But they didn't abort me, they took me in and loved me. Now I am 21 years old, going to finish college, and I am almost at the top of my class. My parents didn't give up on me, and they had to wait 2 month before they could bring me home. Whats the women for pro-abortion excuse?

check this out












































:fluffle: :fluffle:

*Dons Devils advocate cape*

Abortion? Hell yeah. Why? Most of their parents wouldn't be too bothered taking care of them, especially since most abortion cases are young teens.

The teen would become pregnant and is forced to be thrown out of school. Which most likely that'll be the end of her education life and in turn is unable to get a better higher earning job, which she would be working at some low level job place earning cents trying to pay off the debts she incurred trying to feed 2 mouths.

So the child would be growing up, in a world, where most likely their mother would be the only one struggling to take care of them, because their coward of a father would have taken off and is now probably impregnating some other poor woman.

Which the only parent, without enough time and attention, odds are the child is going to grow up without enough love and attention, would most likely be an underachiever, and look for some means of escapism from a shitty world they live in, through deragatory casual sex, drugs and alcohol. Repeating the vicious cycle again and again by getting pregnant or impregnating some poor girl.

I say we abort the child, let the girl continue her ducation. Then go on and possibly have a better brighter future

EDIT: LOTS of Horrible Grammar errors and spelling mistakes. :D

you don't think they would have had some positive influence on your life that no one else could have? what if they helped you stray away from suicide at one point when no one else could have ever done that?
I didn't say that they didn't have any effect, as people quite clearly have had an effect on me. Your question was asking how someone would feel about it, which they wouldn't be able to, as the timeline in which they knew the person would not be the one that was followed. The person never being born could have an effect on them, but they would not be able to feel anything about it unless they somehow had knowledge from the future of an entirely different timeline.

I would rather there be the option of abortion than women being forced to carry, bear and raise a child they didnt want, wont care for and that I as a tax payer will probably end up supporting no matter what the circumstances of conception

banning abortion isnt the way forward, rational and well applied sex education is and tbh while we have religeons around that preach not using contraception abortion is a necessary (if not very plesant) aspect of life

Save the baby humans!


or beat them with clubs and sell their skins. something like that.
http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/godloves0.jpg

Its a religious matter.Some believe life is at conception. Some at birth. Some might consider not having conception is denying a baby to live. Should people be forced to have sex?

Its a personal belief. Until birth, its conjecture on whether the baby is really alive or not. Life after birth is the last step before death, and so it can rightfully be judged as being alive. You dont have to abort your own children, but when there is nothing to judge by except religious beliefs, in america at least, people shouldnt be forced to not be able to, if they feel its not yet birth. You should respect others religious rights, we put up with yours. We get abortion, you get "in god we trust" on the money and in the motto. I'd be willing to stop both though, really :P

ok, i'm officially out of this arguement, because it's about to hit that endless cycle of people repeating the same stuff over and over again.








:cool:

:fluffle: :sniper: :eek: :(

is there anyone important in your life? how would you feel had they been aborted?

I would not associate with the type of person who was a possible abortion candidate. So I hardly see how this affects me.

Abortion is a tool primarily used by those who are unable/incapable of supporting children. Ergo they should not have children in any event. Ergo it has a great deal of utility in helping clense the gene pool.

Evolution: you cannot stop it, you can only try and slow it down.

Let me ask you this. Say your father robbed a bank and shot a police. But instead of punishing your dad. We're going to put you in jail and put you on trail. Why are we punishing the child for something he did not have any control over? Its just irrational thoughts.
I'm not supporting abortion. I do understand your view especially with your own opinion and clearly you have loving parents which is amazing man :).

The point that I'm trying to get across is that abortion is sometimes the only option people think they have. When the mothers health is at risk who has the right to tell this woman that she has to risk her life for one that has not even started. We can't make someone do it. Horrible though it is.

Side note - Congrats on college, I'm 20 an at uni

I would not associate with the type of person who was a possible abortion candidate. So I hardly see how this affects me.

Abortion is a tool primarily used by those who are unable/incapable of supporting children. Ergo they should not have children in any event. Ergo it has a great deal of utility in helping clense the gene pool.

Evolution: you cannot stop it, you can only try and slow it down.
you could stop it with the use of a 1337 :sniper:

I would say im fairly liberal however i gotta say im pro life, for a number of reasons.

1) Many of the instance in which abortions occur are because of unprotected sex, the problems easy to solve why not do so? either take a pill or get the guy to wear a condom.

2) I'm not scientist but i do know that at the point when most people have an abortion the odds are that the fetus is going to become eventually a human being. So while your not killing a human persay your certainly killing the potential for human life. That's not much better than murder

3) There's hundreds of parents out there who want kids but can't have them. If the mother doesn't want the child its not hard to find a parent out there who will adopt.

^ :rolleyes: :upyours: :mad: :gundge: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5: :) :cool:

I'm not supporting abortion. I do understand your view especially with your own opinion and clearly you have loving parents which is amazing man :).

The point that I'm trying to get across is that abortion is sometimes the only option people think they have. When the mothers health is at risk who has the right to tell this woman that she has to risk her life for one that has not even started. We can't make someone do it. Horrible though it is.

Side note - Congrats on college, I'm 20 an at uni
didn't they start a thing called adoption? i'm not sure on exact time, but i know it was at least about 2 weeks ago.

I was aborted.


don't highlight below this line!
_____________________________________

secretly not

a :sniper:

didn't they start a thing called adoption? i'm not sure on exact time, but i know it was at least about 2 weeks ago.

Doesn't really help the mother who died giving birth to the child

Doesn't really help the mother who died giving birth to the child
i really want to know how often that happens, because that's a common argument for pro-choicers

i really want to know how often that happens, because that's a common argument for pro-choicers
That has a HUGE deal with the location.

For example, in the US, there is a large discrepancy between the North and South, and the US as a whole compared to say, Africa, is much safer.

My prespective is that anything that can become a living being. A cat, dog, cows, sheep, apes, humans. Have a spirit and soul. A cell is techinally not a living being, because it does not posess the 5 things that living beings have. (trying to remeber college biology here). Virus are unique to this.

Basically anything that is above cellular level, or has the potential to evolve above the cellular level, has a spirit and soul.

It's funny you say that as the Bible mentions animals DO NOT have souls.

concrete figures man...that's what i need


lest the :sniper: attacks

It's funny you say that as the Bible mentions animals DO NOT have souls.
there goes that repeating thing again

I would say im fairly liberal however i gotta say im pro life, for a number of reasons.

1) Many of the instance in which abortions occur are because of unprotected sex, the problems easy to solve why not do so? either take a pill or get the guy to wear a condom.

2) I'm not scientist but i do know that at the point when most people have an abortion the odds are that the fetus is going to become eventually a human being. So while your not killing a human persay your certainly killing the potential for human life. That's not much better than murder

3) There's hundreds of parents out there who want kids but can't have them. If the mother doesn't want the child its not hard to find a parent out there who will adopt.

Unfortunately, all three of these points are wrong.

i really want to know how often that happens, because that's a common argument for pro-choicers

Couldn't honestly tell you. To be fair thats not really a pro choice argument, it's just an establishment of what is the lesser of two evils. I think abortion should be an option in the cases of rape, incest and when the mothers life is at risk.

Couldn't honestly tell you. To be fair thats not really a pro choice argument, it's just an establishment of what is the lesser of two evils. I think abortion should be an option in the cases of rape, incest and when the mothers life is at risk.
abortion should not be an option for incest. i live in alabama, and i don't even agree with that.

1. This thread is spelt wrong.
2. The Catholic Church only accepts the natural form of contraception - that is having sex while the female is infertile for her menstraul cycle.
3. I really don't care about the stances other religions take as I'm not of any other religion... Some people may call me a blunt-headed bastard for that... That's true.
4. Abortion is wrong, not by religion, but morally. Hell, if this issue came up in the UN I would immediately reject it and illegalise any of my country's citizens going abroad for abortive purposes. (wish you ould do that!!!)
5. Why are you having this topic in the first place? There are at least 5 forums to my knowledge that I have answered to condemning abortion... One of which I was banned from for my strong feelings in the topic. All you have to do is Google: abortion threads on forums, and you will get (as of the time writing this article) 101,000 results. If you take away or change some search parameters I'm sure you will get much more...

Good Day to you. :headbang:

abortion should not be an option for incest. i live in alabama, and i don't even agree with that.

I hope its a marginal number anyway
What has living in alabama got to do with it?

I hope its a marginal number anyway
What has living in alabama got to do with it?
not familiar with the hicks?

i'm really gone this time



HOLLA

not familiar with the hicks?

British. so I'm afraid not

abortion should not be an option for incest.
Agreed.
One of which I was banned from for my strong feelings in the topic.
They actually banned you simply because of your opinions? :mad:

It's funny you say that as the Bible mentions animals DO NOT have souls.

IT shouldnt matter what has a soul. Thats a religious factor, that should not be used to justify a non-religious matter.

What about the arguments for abortion? Nevermind pro-choice, I mean pro-abortion!

1 - We could commercialize it via an extension of the fast food service industry. Drive-through abortion clinics, anyone?

2 - Less people. Everyone's always talking about how bad overpopulation is.

3 - And, with fewer people, there is a greater value for each individual human life. Human life is currently cheap, by decreasing the supply we increase the demand and therefore the value of human existence.

4 - Abortion is good for you. I read it on a website somewhere.

5 - God likes abortion. I read it in the Bible somewhere.

6 - If you don't believe 4 or 5, you're just ignorant and/or going to Hell for disagreeing with God.

7 - A human life can be potentially virtuous or sinful. A human soul can potentially go to Heaven or Hell. Pure, unborn souls that die go to Heaven, whereas if they grow up they may commit some vile acts and go to Hell.

8 - You see an abortion, I see one less potential victim of terrorism! What, you want MORE people to suffer death by terrorists, do you?

9 - You see an abortion, I see one less potential terrorist! You want to give these terrorists a chance to corrupt our youth in our prisons and cities and internet cafes? To make terrorists out of once-normal American souls? I don't, and if you're a patriot you won't either.

Therefore, abortion is morally justified!

Ya know.

I just realized.

Anti-abortion philosophy...

It's Socialist.

You're forcing one person to provide for another, at quite likely their own expense.

Instead of one teenage girl who grows up to be a rich doctor, after she did something stupid...

You have a teenage girl who grows up to work two jobs, to support a kid she never wanted.

It's the dark side of socialism.

Hell.

If that wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

Be a capitalist, vote pro-choice. Yeesh.

Unfortunately, all three of these points are wrong.

elaborate please, facts, statistics? theres no point in arguing something if you cant explain why someone is wrong

the second is partly influenced by my opinion however as an adopted child i do know the situation there is when it comes to adopted children and their parents, in Australasia there were rougly 14 adoptions last year for well over a hundred parents wanting to adopt. Thats a fact sorry.

As for the first, i refuse to believe that there are that many thousands of rape victims and faulty condoms, the testing for condoms is very rigourous only 1/100 in a particular batch needs to fail testing for the batch to be destroyed.

So are you going to provide me with some evidence to the contrary or give me another "your wrong"

*Dons Devils advocate cape*

Abortion? Hell yeah. Why? Most of their parents wouldn't be too bothered taking care of them, especially since most abortion cases are young teens.

The teen would become pregnant and is forced to be thrown out of school. Which most likely that'll be the end of her education life and in turn is unable to get a better higher earning job, which she would be working at some low level job place earning cents trying to pay off the debts she incurred trying to feed 2 mouths.

So the child would be growing up, in a world, where most likely their mother would be the only one struggling to take care of them, because their coward of a father would have taken off and is now probably impregnating some other poor woman.

I saw we abort the child, let the girl continue her education. Then go on and possibly have a better brighter future.

Which the only parent, without enough time and attention, odds are is that the child is going to grow up without enough love and attention, would most likely be an underachiever, and look for some means of escapism from a shitty world they live in, through deragatory casual sex, drugs and alcohol. Repeating the vicious cycle again and again by getting pregnant or impregnating some poor girl.

This is my stance on the issue in a nutshell. It amazes me that the people that advocate outlawing abortion are the same people that balk at the fact that their tax dollars go to welfare for these same children. Like, once the kid is born, s/he's no longer important or worth supporting. They don't realize that by forcing a woman to have a child she does not want and/or is not ready to support is not punishing the woman. It's punishing the child, for the reasons stated above.

In a perfect world, men take responsibility for the women they impregnate and the children that result. Every unwanted child put into the foster care system finds a family. Single mothers are able to land jobs that gives them a living wage and a family-friendly work schedule and are able to find affordable day care and health insurance.

But this is not a perfect world. We have deadbeat dads. Perfectly eligible foster parents are turned away because of race, religion or sexuality. Many companies are still hostile to single mothers.

With the many methods of birth control available, abortion as a means of "last resort" birth control is morally reprehensible. But it's better to keep it legal, where it can be observed and regulated, than to force desperate women to return to the "back alley butchers," coat hangers, and swan dives over the stairs.

With the many methods of birth control available, abortion as a means of "last resort" birth control is morally reprehensible. But it's better to keep it legal, where it can be observed and regulated, than to force desperate women to return to the "back alley butchers," coat hangers, and swan dives over the stairs.

Agreed

I hate to talk about this issue, because very rarely does anyone's mind change. However, since someone said that there are hundreds of people wanting to adopt, and another said this is untrue, I'll just give you a fact. I'm 18 years old and was adopted at birth. My adoptive parents had to wait 6 years to get me. I'm sure that list is much longer today. Now, while I'm sure the waiting list is much longer for some races than others (I'm white), I'm pretty sure that it takes at least 2 years to get to the top of the list for blacks, and a decade to receive a newborn white child. It is kind of sad that we have so many abortions going on in this country, while at the same time infertile parents are importing babies from Asia.

elaborate please, facts, statistics? theres no point in arguing something if you cant explain why someone is wrong

the second is partly influenced by my opinion however as an adopted child i do know the situation there is when it comes to adopted children and their parents, in Australasia there were rougly 14 adoptions last year for well over a hundred parents wanting to adopt. Thats a fact sorry.

As for the first, i refuse to believe that there are that many thousands of rape victims and faulty condoms, the testing for condoms is very rigourous only 1/100 in a particular batch needs to fail testing for the batch to be destroyed.

So are you going to provide me with some evidence to the contrary or give me another "your wrong"

I've learned there is little point in explaining most things on this forum, but I will try anyway.

You, of course, did not feel the need to provide any facts, statistics, or authority for your statements.

I'm afraid my information is US-centered. International reproductive issues are different.

From the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm):

Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks.
A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks.
In a study of abortion patients conducted during 2000--2001, a total of 54% of patients reported that they were using contraception during the month they became pregnant.


From The Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html):

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services
Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when medical risks associated with abortion increase significantly
Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 1998.


So, back to your points:

1) Many of the instance in which abortions occur are because of unprotected sex, the problems easy to solve why not do so? either take a pill or get the guy to wear a condom.

You are partially correct, but your statement is very misleading. More than half of those seeking abortions had used contraceptives. (Also, not all abortions are for pregnancies that start out as unwanted.)

It is true that a failure to use or properly use contraception is a major cause of unintended pregnancies. Of course, most of those who are anti-abortion do not support sex education or effective contraception.

Moreover, you provide no reasoning for why abortion should be banned for all, merely because some do not use contraception.

2) I'm not scientist but i do know that at the point when most people have an abortion the odds are that the fetus is going to become eventually a human being. So while your not killing a human persay your certainly killing the potential for human life. That's not much better than murder.

As shown above, almost all abortions occur in the very early stages of pregnancies. Almost no viable fetuses are aborted.

3) There's hundreds of parents out there who want kids but can't have them. If the mother doesn't want the child its not hard to find a parent out there who will adopt.

It is not trivial to force a woman to carry a fetus for nine months until birth. There are costs, health risks, and substantial impacts on one's life - such as the ability to work, etc.

Most pro-choice organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and ChoiceUSA, are actively pro-adoption -- providing adoption services and/or promoting adoption.

The issue is complicated, but there is a disconnect between the number of parents wishing to adopt and the number of children available for adoption. There is a surplus of both. One problem is that many wishing to adopt have strong preferences for certain characteristics -- for example, they want a healthy, white, male, infant.

Regardless, all of your points ignore the key point: Who Decides?

That’s what all of this boils down to. Who should make personal health decisions—women, their families and physicians—or the government?

Government intrusion into women’s private reproductive health decisions tells women that they cannot be trusted with their own bodies, blurs the line between what is public domain and what is private, and ties the hands of doctors who are forced to consider government regulations before their own expert opinions. Simply put, the government does not belong in our doctors’ offices.

It’s the woman's choice—not the government's.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.


the right to live and prosper....i can only speak on british abortions when i say this, but the kind of women who have abortions are probably teenage mums and would find it incredably difficult to raise a child when they are little more than children themselves.
When looking at teenage mums in britain, they dont have the best living conditions and their offspring will probably not aspire to any great level of academic careers.
on the otherhand i see teenage mums coping well with the burden that they bare

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus.

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

i'm athiest and i strongly agree that abortion should be illegal, but for completely different reasons though.

What about the child's autonomy? You know, all this noise about women's right and its the women's body just comes off sounding selfish to me.

If you do not accept the theory that something called "a soul" appears at the moment of conception there is nothing selfish about this. Harming someone is bringing them into a situation that they consider worse than the condition that existed before the harming action. An embryo/fetus without a nervous system has had no consious experiences - therefor it cannot be harmed. A woman that does not wish to be pregnant is harmed by the pregnancy, which for her is an illness. Curing this illness harms noone, and helps her.
Potentials are irrelevant, since they are arbitrary and need too many presumptions. Unless you believe that living is always better than not existing of course, which is where the soul thing comes in.

is there anyone important in your life? how would you feel had they been aborted?
I would feel nothing. They would not have existed and therefor I would not have met or be able to miss them.

i'm athiest and i strongly agree that abortion should be illegal, but for completely different reasons though.

Which ones ? Women getting careless with contraception, promoting STDs ?

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

Hey, suit yourself. Believe what you like. It doesn't bother me.

However, allow me to believe what I like as well. Don't impose your will on my body or my mind. If you're against abortion, don't have one. It's as plain and simple as that. Some people don't like eggs. They don't try to get eggs banned, they just don't eat them.

I promise you that your tax dollars are not going to pay for abortions and I promise you nobody is going to force you to have one.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.
What soul?

Provide some empirical evidence of such a soul.

What soul?

Provide some empirical evidence of such a soul.

It's inside the little dangly thing at the back of your throat. :D

Which ones ? Women getting careless with contraception, promoting STDs ?

both of those, plus that it's a violent act, and that it's against nature. hmm, i have very messed up political views.

This is not so much a pro-abortion rant as it is 'lesser of two evils:'

I hate abortion as well (exceptions being rape, mother's life is at risk). But do you think that by making it illegal, women will stop having them? With them illegalized, women would have to resort to unsafe back-alley clinics that put the mother at risk as well.

So on one hand you have illegal abortions that put both the mother and child at risk. And then you have legal abortion which puts only the mother at risk. Life is a bitch like this at times :(

My prespective is that anything that can become a living being. A cat, dog, cows, sheep, apes, humans. Have a spirit and soul. A cell is techinally not a living being, because it does not posess the 5 things that living beings have. (trying to remeber college biology here). Virus are unique to this.

Basically anything that is above cellular level, or has the potential to evolve above the cellular level, has a spirit and soul.

Catholics believe animals don't have souls. I thought you were a devoted Catholic?

Anyway, I know this is a tired question, but what about when a woman has been raped? Or abused? You can't seriously expect her to have the child?

I would really like these pro-life people to talk to some mothers, and see that having a baby isn't as easy as they seem to think.

Of course abortion is murder... what would be the point if it didn't kill the damn thing? :p

If someone wants to kill a useless blob of a fetus, it should be their right. It is doing nothing of any use to anyone, so it's death is irrelevent. If murdering it confers a specific advantage on the mother, such as avoiding having a child when they don't want one, then what's the problem? In the same way that murdering another individual in the cause of war, or for "justice", is considered ok, abortion is murder thats practical benefits far outweighs any vague moral concerns.

It's inside the little dangly thing at the back of your throat. :D
:eek:
So that's what that is for!

:eek:
So that's what that is for!

The more you know! *cue music*

Basically anything that is above cellular level, or has the potential to evolve above the cellular level, has a spirit and soul.Well, then, you should surely be supporting abortion. By aborting a foetus you send its soul straight to God without forcing it to endure the burden of mortal existence first.

And since that abortion must, by definition, be part of God's plan, who are we to argue with him?

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.
why should anybody bother to convince you? you have the same freedom as anybody else when it comes to pregnancy: the freedom to choose whether you will carry your own pregnancy to term. your opinion about anybody else's pregnancy is irrelevant.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.
What the hell is up with connecting atheists to satanists? Well you see Virginia, its a fetus, not just a label but scientifically. And you're sending them to Heaven, isn't that what you want?

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.
Have you any PROOF, scientific proof that this happens, or are you just letting you religion smudge it?

I would really like these pro-life people to talk to some mothers, and see that having a baby isn't as easy as they seem to think.

they can talk to me - I am a 33 yr old single parent mother (single due to my ex husband being a soul destroying, self serving, possessive and manipulative twat who went personally bankrupt to avoid paying me any real sort of money for running his business, home and life for 9 fecking years whilst not being allowed to go out and earn any money myself) and I can tell you this

no I wouldnt turn back the clock and not have my son BUT I do think every woman (and indeed the man should be involved in the decision making especially if the mother is proposing to keep a child he doesnt want) should have the right to decide if they want to continue with an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy

I nearly died giving birth to my son - I was (and still am) healthy, fit and active but due circumstances beyond my control I ended up in hospital for the last 5 weeks of my pregnancy with life threatening high blood pressure which resulted in an emergency C section (during which I bled so heavily I also nearly died during that aswell not to mention they used an anesthetic I am allergic to for my epidural) - at no time was my son in danger but I was

then when he was 18 months old I finally got the courage to leave my husband walking away from a large country house, a successful business, a £40k car, 2 horses and a very comfortable lifestyle into having to cover not just my own financial responsibilites but also my ex husbands (joint and several liability is a bitch) including credit card debts of over 100k that I had no knowledge of!

after selling the house, car, horses and now living in a 2 bedroomed box on a fairly low salary (I earn less at 33 than I did when I was 25) I have that debt down to less than 5k and I get very little help from my ex husband due to his bankrupcy order

I have a 1st degree (with honors) and if I didnt have my son I could be in a position where I earned alot of money but due to the nature of the work I am so highly qualified in I cant do it with the responsibility of loking after a 4 year old so I am going to have to bide my time until he is old enough for me to be able to work in my career (I am a very highly qualified Psychiatric Nurse with extra qualifications in criminal psychology, counselling and a masters degree in applied psychology and specialised in working with the most violently minded people in society which I cant do now due to the unsociable hours the role demands) but at least I can look myself in the face and say that I am doing whats right for my son in shitty circumstances and that I stand on my own 2 feet with no state assistance at all

I resent hugely those who say that single parent mothers are a drain on society as I am most certainly not!

yes I had it hard, yes I adore my son and yes I wouldnt turn back the clock and not have him BUT I wouldnt wish my set of circumstances on anyone and if someone having an abortion means they dont have to make the kind of hard life choices I had to make then fair play to them

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus.


It seems that very often among my Christian friends, I hear the vague storyline of a Marvel comic. It's always an "us vs. them" mindset. It's as if some of them believe that there's a secret den of bad guys somewhere (e.g. a bunch of pagans and muslims and atheists sitting around a table in the dark) going "okay, tomorrow we're gonna infiltrate and take over the church on Generic St." *shrugs* A bit off topic, but the preface of the post caused it to bubble up in the morass I call a mind.

I would really like these pro-life people to talk to some mothers, and see that having a baby isn't as easy as they seem to think.

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.

I beleive it does. An unborn child is one of the purest life forms out there. It has not sinned, it has not done any wrong. Its a wonderful thing to behold. Once we are birthed, then that pureness is gone. But during the 9 month, the child is essentinally pure. Abortion kills that pureness.

But but but but but but but...
According to Danté unborn babies go to hell!

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.

Well i'm one of them.

Well i'm one of them.

So you not only are quite happy never to have lived to save your mothers convience but you also believe that thats the way every other person should feel.

There is also the small problem that a fetus cannot tell you if its happy to die or not. Plus you would never known if you had been happy if you had died early.

But but but but but but but...
According to Danté unborn babies go to hell!

Yes, and Dante's work is biblical is'nt it?

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

Ok, I'll take a shot...

It's not a "child" or anything! When the average abortion takes place, it's a clump of cells that would not survive outside the woman's body. I don't know about you religious nuts, but us science people don't classify that as a human. It's called a zygote or embryo.

Edit: I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't think these women will "face SERIOUS concequences".

So you not only are quite happy never to have lived to save your mothers convience but you also believe that thats the way every other person should feel.

There is also the small problem that a fetus cannot tell you if its happy to die or not. Plus you would never known if you had been happy if you had died early.

You're putting a lot of words into my mouth there :/
I said i'd be happy not to have lived at all, nothing else.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

Look into the number of fertilised eggs that fail to implant.

Done? God's a git then isn't he?

I am in between pro choice and pro life. Sure, if inside of the mother's uterus there actually was a BABY in there (several months old), then I am more against it- though not completely. If it is just a zygote, embryo, or are very young fetus.. I really don't care. It has many of the same qualities that a squid has, and while it is composed of human DNA, It is not a human quite yet. It's like picking up a just fertilized chicken egg and claiming it is currently a chicken. No, it takes time.

If you are really against abortion, allow more contraceptives and be very open with your teens. Many teenagers get abortions without their parents knowing because they have a fear of their parents knowing. If they had the option of actually coming to mom and dad with their problem (which could be a HUGE life changing problem), then they wouldn't have to be so secretive, they would have emotional support and probably be more willingTo maybe at least go through the pregnancy and then give it up for adoption. It really depends on what the person wants in life, and when they need to achieve certain things to get there.

As for people who get repeated abortions, though in some cases it may not be their fault for keep getting pregnant (contraceptive failures), in the cases where they are too lazy to use their options correctly or are one of those crazy druggie people- they probably shouldn't be passing their genes on into the gene pool anyways. Sure there is a chance that some great people could have come from one of the aborted zygotes, but it could have drugs in it's system and raised really poorly, so it has a good chance to be a really screwed up person who probably will wish for death anyways. (though, I am aware that not all of the kids end up this way).

I myself wouldn't want to get an abortion. While I do dislike homo sapiens in general, I just remember some of my buddhist studies and just remember that it is an organism, and all organisms have my respect.

But what I don't understand is since I view homo sapien as just another organism, like a dandelion, horse, or ant, I really dislike that homo sapiens are generally a harmful, virus-like species, and why a clump of human cells is so much more important than a cat.

You're putting a lot of words into my mouth there :/
I said i'd be happy not to have lived at all, nothing else.

Yes, but if you intend to apply that principal to abortitons you are basicly saying that that is how all fetus's would feel on the matter. It is very hard to gauge wether or not a person would want to live a life and wehter or not they would be happy not to. Hence they should be allowed to.

If a woman is raped, and gets pregnant and doesn't want a child, she should be able to abort. What's the problem? She isn't murdering a 'child'. She is killing the 'fruit' of teh child. You cannot take away her right to abort. Sure, it's cruel and bad, but it's the person's choice.

Yes, but if you intend to apply that principal to abortitons you are basicly saying that that is how all fetus's would feel on the matter. It is very hard to gauge wether or not a person would want to live a life and wehter or not they would be happy not to. Hence they should be allowed to.

And that's where you're putting words into my mouth. Simply because i'm "pro-choice" and i'd be happy not to have been born doesnt meant that i feel everyone thinks the same way.
I strongly dislike the catagorising people as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because by reducing a very complicated, serious issue to two gimmiky buzzwords it trivialises the issue, and more so because it implies there's only two schools of thought on the matter. I say i'm pro-choice because i don't believe that abortion is necessarily evil, but that deosnt mean i agree with every other person who describes themself the same way.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

Book of Genesis says that the soul enters at the point of birth, though.. right?

What about the child's autonomy? You know, all this noise about women's right and its the women's body just comes off sounding selfish to me.

Let's investigate that, shall we?

Okay - abortions almost universally occur before the 16 week period.

So - let us take a 16-week foetus, and set it somewhere away from anyone else. It can 'look after itself'.

That is, after all, what autonomy implies.

How do you think your 'autonomous' foetus is going to do?

How do you think your 'autonomous' foetus is going to do?

*raises hand* Is this hypothetical foetus, a zombie foetus?

I would say im fairly liberal however i gotta say im pro life, for a number of reasons.

1) Many of the instance in which abortions occur are because of unprotected sex, the problems easy to solve why not do so? either take a pill or get the guy to wear a condom.

2) I'm not scientist but i do know that at the point when most people have an abortion the odds are that the fetus is going to become eventually a human being. So while your not killing a human persay your certainly killing the potential for human life. That's not much better than murder

3) There's hundreds of parents out there who want kids but can't have them. If the mother doesn't want the child its not hard to find a parent out there who will adopt.

There are hundreds of parents who want children, but can't have them... and yet, there are tens of thousands of children in orphanages ALREADY. Why should we condone condemning children to parentless lives?

Oh - by the way... since a man passes 'old' sperm every time he urinates, and a woman passes at least one 'old' egg with every period... simply NOT HAVING SEX is actually 'killing the potential for human life'. So - all those people who insist on not having sex till marriage, are actually baby-murderers?

*raises hand* Is this hypothetical foetus, a zombie foetus?
Oooh, I hope not... zombie foetuses creep me out... :)

I can only think of one, off hand... but still... ick.

Book of Genesis says that the soul enters at the point of birth, though.. right?

Do you remember the verse grave? I dont remember reading anything about that, but I could be wrong.

Psalms 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

The Bible says that human life begins in the mothers womb. Personally, I am against abortion, but I feel that the women should have her own choice.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"...Deuteronomy 30:19

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.

No one would be happy if they never existed. They also would not feel sad about never existing, because things that don’t exist do not feel (to the best of my knowlege.)

If you never existed, would you cut your hair in the same way as you do now? Can you prove that things that don’t exist are capable of advanced thought?

5 - God likes abortion. I read it in the Bible somewhere.


I don't know if I'd go so far as to say 'god likes abortion' (well, except that I just did... but, you know what I mean...)

BUT: there is biblical precedent for abortion IF the 'father' doesn't object, and IF the 'mother' isn't harmed.

Basically - it is left up to the 'father' to decide if reparation is needed from the aborter, in that case.

Do you remember the verse grave? I dont remember reading anything about that, but I could be wrong.

Psalms 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

The Bible says that human life begins in the mothers womb. Personally, I am against abortion, but I feel that the women should have her own choice.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"...Deuteronomy 30:19

Well, good MORNING Justifidians... :)

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Man is neither 'alive' nor a 'soul', UNTIL he takes 'breath'.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say 'god likes abortion' (well, except that I just did... but, you know what I mean...)

BUT: there is biblical precedent for abortion IF the 'father' doesn't object, and IF the 'mother' isn't harmed.

Basically - it is left up to the 'father' to decide if reparation is needed from the aborter, in that case.

Heh. Well, maybe, I dunno, I'm not a Biblical interpreter (any more than anyone else is, which is to say, I am, 100%). Infanticide was more common in ancient times than abortion was, I'd guess. Dating back to caveman times even. Not enough food, well sometimes the young cannot be brought up as a result. I'd guess that a basic agreement on that was made amongst tribal customs and passed on to the ancient civilizations and leading up to now, today, although its abortion and not infanticide (which is an improvement) and it's clinical, not DIY-home medical surgery (another improvement), but it's 'easiness' and the way it's presented as a decent 'alternative' to raising a kid worries and sickens me.

But not as much as zombie babies. Remember, zombie fetuses can turn into zombie babies. Which you HAVE to kill. Bullet to the brain!

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

I was under the impression that the Bible says that the soul does not enter the body until the baby is 3/4 born. It wasn't until the discovery of sperm and egg fertilization in the mid 1800's that they started to think that life starts at conception.

Do you remember the verse grave? I dont remember reading anything about that, but I could be wrong.

Psalms 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

The Bible says that human life begins in the mothers womb. Personally, I am against abortion, but I feel that the women should have her own choice.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"...Deuteronomy 30:19

I don't see that either of the verses you quoted supports the claim that "life begins in the mothers womb"... was that a reference to a verse yet unposted?

Heh. Well, maybe, I dunno, I'm not a Biblical interpreter (any more than anyone else is, which is to say, I am, 100%). Infanticide was more common in ancient times than abortion was, I'd guess. Dating back to caveman times even. Not enough food, well sometimes the young cannot be brought up as a result. I'd guess that a basic agreement on that was made amongst tribal customs and passed on to the ancient civilizations and leading up to now, today, although its abortion and not infanticide (which is an improvement) and it's clinical, not DIY-home medical surgery (another improvement), but it's 'easiness' and the way it's presented as a decent 'alternative' to raising a kid worries and sickens me.

But not as much as zombie babies. Remember, zombie fetuses can turn into zombie babies. Which you HAVE to kill. Bullet to the brain!

I don't think it is portrayed as a 'decent alternative' to raising a kid.... in most of the cases I have known of, where people I have encountered have had abortions... it has been because they could see no good way that they COULD raise a child, and/or because they had an unwanted pregnancy to look forward to.

I think it is portrayed as a serious alternative to begetting unwanted children... and THAT can only be good.

Well, good MORNING Justifidians... :)

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Man is neither 'alive' nor a 'soul', UNTIL he takes 'breath'.

Good morning to you too ;) I can see that argument I guess, but...

What about Ecclesiastes 11:5? "As you know not what is the way of the wind, or how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a pregnant woman, even so you know not the work of God, Who does all."

Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...."

Luke 1:41-44 "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb...."

<snip>

Oh My God.
I take my proverbial hat off to you. :(

Saying that it is okay to kill a fetus just because it is not able to sustain itself is nonsense. According to that logic, we should have pulled the plug on Christopher Reeve, or anyone else not able to support themselves. Even worse, A fetus would eventually be able to support itself, unlike other unfortunate people who may never have that ability again. I'm not saying pro-choice people are right or wrong, but pick an angle, which isn't so easily contradicted.

I am pro choice an dI think the whole "Fetus unable to sustain itself" is BS as well. A baby can't sustain itself either. It needs to be fed and cleaned and kept warm by it's care taker. So should we kill newborns also?

Saying that it is okay to kill a fetus just because it is not able to sustain itself is nonsense. According to that logic, we should have pulled the plug on Christopher Reeve, or anyone else not able to support themselves. Even worse, A fetus would eventually be able to support itself, unlike other unfortunate people who may never have that ability again. I'm not saying pro-choice people are right or wrong, but pick an angle, which isn't so easily contradicted.

I don't think anyone HAS used that argument, have they?

I have pointed out the flaws in the original poster's assertion that a foetus deserves autonomy... since we ALL know what happens if a foetus IS given autonomy.

What happens?

The problem with having a discussion on this subject almost always comes down to the bible says this, the bible says that. One major problem is that those who use the bible as backup for their stand are basically assuming that everyone believes that the bible is the know all and end all of the conversation. Truth be told those who believe that the bible is just another book greatly outway the number of people who think it is divinely inspired.
The argument about this will never end just as the wars spawned in the name of religion will never end until belief in something only 2 or 3 thousand years old ends. That will not happen because lemmings need a leader.
As far as abortion goes. They have been happening in one form or another since the beginning of the human race and will not end just because someone says they disagree with it. At least it's not done with a coat hanger in a back alley so that both the mother and the child, fetus, whatever you want to call it dies.
What I would like to see is one of these bible spouters try to find a different rationality to prove thier point instead of saying well the bible says this and the bible says that. My belief says that you do what is best for the earth and your community as a whole instead of focusing on self. The earth is over populated and soon will not be able to support itself. That will cause and has caused in some countries mass starvations and diseases.
What is good for the whole overrides any argument about what the mother wants or what your fictitious, self-serving, ego-maniacal "god" says that you should or should not do.

There is no debating that abortion itself is a horrible thing, I hope no one ever has to go through it. However, it must be realized it is a necesarry evil in this world. Your religious principles have for some reason led you to believe the statements you've made, and that's fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions, however, i've noticed lately that these princples are trying to squirm their way into our constitutional law, which I have a huge problem with.

WTF?!? Will prohibiting abortion do anything except incriminate otherwise honest women? It won't stop the practice of abortions, just as prohibition of alcohol, and the war on drugs has shown us, it will only send it to the underground black market. Its this thought process that makes me fume at the fact the evangelicals insist on enacting laws that follow their religious beliefs. Is anyone being forced to have an abortion? If gay marriage is legalized everywhere, will that make more people gay? Is the only reason you don't do heroin is because it's illegal? Please, keep your religious convictions, hold on to them and live your life by them if you choose, just keep them to yourself and don't make me have to abide to them.

Good morning to you too ;) I can see that argument I guess, but...

What about Ecclesiastes 11:5? "As you know not what is the way of the wind, or how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a pregnant woman, even so you know not the work of God, Who does all."

Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...."

Luke 1:41-44 "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb...."

Regarding the Leviticus 17:11 quote - yes the 'life' of the flesh IS in the blood - but that 'life' is the 'soul'. And, Genesis 2:7 says that that 'soul' doesn't enter the body until breathed in... thus - babies don't have a soul until that first breath... which means foetuses have no soul... and are not 'alive'.

Regarding Luke 1:41-44 - this passage reminds me of the Song of Solomon... in that a biological process is being described... and there are different ways to interpret it. The way I see it, it is Elizabeth that is reacting to Mary - and the 'baby' in her womb is just moving, as foetuses do... and it is Elizabeth that claims 'joy' for it.

The Song of Solomon reference this reminds me of, is: "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him". This passage is taken by some to mean that the 'woman' becomes aroused... and yet literally seems to imply that she had a 'bowel movement'... a very different prospect, one usually supposes.

Regarding your Ecclesiastes quote... I am not sure which version you are taking it from - but it seems like a misinterpretation. Mine gives "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all".

It is the BONES that grow in the womb, which is a mystery presented here... and ANOTHER mystery presented here is the 'way of the spirit'... which is not addressed to the womb.

I hate to talk about this issue, because very rarely does anyone's mind change. However, since someone said that there are hundreds of people wanting to adopt, and another said this is untrue, I'll just give you a fact. I'm 18 years old and was adopted at birth. My adoptive parents had to wait 6 years to get me. I'm sure that list is much longer today. Now, while I'm sure the waiting list is much longer for some races than others (I'm white), I'm pretty sure that it takes at least 2 years to get to the top of the list for blacks, and a decade to receive a newborn white child. It is kind of sad that we have so many abortions going on in this country, while at the same time infertile parents are importing babies from Asia.

And that is just part of the irony... one assumes that by 'this country', you mean the USA, right?

The number of available children for adoption FAR outwieghs the number of 'parents' willing to adopt... but those 'parents' are out there 'shopping' for a child. They don't want a 'random' child... they want something specific - and that leaves untold thousands of 'unwanted' children in orphanages or foster-homes for life... at least until they are old enough to be 'on their own'.

Also - some 'parents' import their babies because there is LESS difficulty importing a baby than adopting a 'homegrown' one... less background checks, for example.

As it is - the important figure is that potential adoptable children are FAR more numerous already, than people willing to adopt them.

Thus - saying that a girl shouldn't abort, but should 'put the baby up for adoption' ignores the reality that that 'child' would be statistically MOST likely NOT to be adopted. ESPECIALLY if it was a child of an 'unpopular' race.

Most rational people don't have to base his/her debate on the bible. If you would notice, about 1/4 of the people who have uses the bible in this thread have used it to counter pro-lifers. The people who use the bible to stand for either side are not being rational. You can use God as foundation of a reason to believe something, but most modern religions often encourage us to ask questions of our faith, including Catholicism (St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church). Beliefs about right and wrong should not be countered by your belief in God, but only supported. The majority of people who are against abortion believe that because of a strong rooted tradition that in the civilized world we don't just go killing people. The basic question once again is "When does a person become a person?"

Someone early in the thread suggested that this was not the main question, that the main question was something relating to a woman's right to privacy or something like that. This is wrong because the civilized world has consistantly decreased rights in order to protect the life of its citizens. I.E. you may think it is a right to go around shooting people, but we have laws preventing that. The right to live overrides someone elses right to kill.

In response to the previous post. I'm sorry. I meant newborn children. And if you don't belive me as to how long it takes to get a newborn child, go to the adoption agency and ask. The process actually isnt that hard. You just have to show sustainable income and then you get put on the list after an interview.

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.

Well, logical speaking this is a nonsensical statement.

However, to amuse you, I can introduce you to several. Well, actually, I am just guessing that they are pro-euthanesia, since all they can do is cry from the immense pain their genetic defects cause them 24/7. Which the doctors knew they would be suffering from before they were born - but hey, the parents were anti-abortion.

There is also the small problem that a fetus cannot tell you if its happy to die or not. Plus you would never known if you had been happy if you had died early.

Yes. Which is exactly why an embryo has no rights. It cannot be happy, it cannot be sad. It has no hopes or dreams, no thoughts or contemplations. It can in fact not feel at all due to the absence of a nervous system. It also never had any of those capabilities. It never had experiences. You cannot murder something like that - you can only kill it.

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.

I wouldn't object. Well, I mean, OF COURSE I wouldn't... if I'd never lived, I COULDN'T object, could I?

Silly question, Neo.

This is getting ridiculous!!!

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.
Me! ME! MEEEEEEEEE! :D

the right to live and prosper....i can only speak on british abortions when i say this, but the kind of women who have abortions are probably teenage mums and would find it incredably difficult to raise a child when they are little more than children themselves.
When looking at teenage mums in britain, they dont have the best living conditions and their offspring will probably not aspire to any great level of academic careers.
on the otherhand i see teenage mums coping well with the burden that they bare

Well I heard about 500 post about teenage moms and how they are suffering, and how they want to escape the consequences of their action. This is a bad cycle people. If we let them escape the consequences of un-protected sex, then they're just going to do it again. Also allowing them to have sex, get an abortion, and have sex again, its not healthy. It spreads VDs, STDS, etc. We live in an age now where everyone should know the consequences of un-protected sex! Theres no excuse for sexually active women to be off the pill. Theres no excuse for the guy not using a condoms. I say if the woman is going to be careless about not only sex, but her own body and health. Let her have the baby, let her have the consequences of her actions.

Catholics believe animals don't have souls. I thought you were a devoted Catholic?

Anyway, I know this is a tired question, but what about when a woman has been raped? Or abused? You can't seriously expect her to have the child?

Yes, lets punish the child. Sorry little Johnny, we know you couldn't do anything, and we know you'd probably grow up to be a fine young man. But here comes the coat hanger. You know there are OTHER options beside this horrible act. I know at least 5 sterile couples that would LOVE to have a child of heart. They are amazed and sicken by how a woman being selfish can just kill the child. For every mother who doesn't want a child, at least 5-10 sterile couple does want it.

Once again, "its the women" right arguement comes up. Once again it just sounds selfish to me. "Well I had unprotected sex, I wasn't on the pill. So, why should I live with my consequences? I mean I'm sure it won't come back and bite me in the ass in the next life."

WRONG!

Well I heard about 500 post about teenage moms and how they are suffering, and how they want to escape the consequences of their action. This is a bad cycle people. If we let them escape the consequences of un-protected sex, then they're just going to do it again. Also allowing them to have sex, get an abortion, and have sex again, its not healthy. It spreads VDs, STDS, etc. We live in an age now where everyone should know the consequences of un-protected sex! Theres no excuse for sexually active women to be off the pill. Theres no excuse for the guy not using a condoms. I say if the woman is going to be careless about not only sex, but her own body and health. Let her have the baby, let her have the consequences of her actions.

Having abortions doesn't 'spread VDs, STDS, etc'.

Perhaps you meant that having an abortion means that someone can have sex again, and therefore, risk spreading VDs, STDs?

Newsflash: People who have HAD babies can STILL have sex, too - and can still contract and spread diseases.

Regarding your "Theres no excuse for sexually active women to be off the pill" comment - how about the fact that the pill has side effects... such that some women cannot take the pill?

I also find it intersting that you claim to be a christian, yet think a woman should have a baby, as a 'punishment'? "I say if the woman is going to be careless ... Let her have the baby, let her have the consequences of her actions". Curious attitude... especially since you were EARLIER arguing it was 'saving babies' that motivated you... now it seems to be 'revenge on teenage moms'.

Yes, lets punish the child. Sorry little Johnny, we know you couldn't do anything, and we know you'd probably grow up to be a fine young man. But here comes the coat hanger. You know there are OTHER options beside this horrible act. I know at least 5 sterile couples that would LOVE to have a child of heart. They are amazed and sicken by how a woman being selfish can just kill the child. For every mother who doesn't want a child, at least 5-10 sterile couple does want it.

Once again, "its the women" right arguement comes up. Once again it just sounds selfish to me. "Well I had unprotected sex, I wasn't on the pill. So, why should I live with my consequences? I mean I'm sure it won't come back and bite me in the ass in the next life."

WRONG!

Your statistics are utter rubbish.

"For every mother who doesn't want a child, at least 5-10 sterile couple does want it".

You want to make a claim like that - let's see you support it.

Yes, lets punish the child. Sorry little Johnny, we know you couldn't do anything, and we know you'd probably grow up to be a fine young man. But here comes the coat hanger. You know there are OTHER options beside this horrible act. I know at least 5 sterile couples that would LOVE to have a child of heart. They are amazed and sicken by how a woman being selfish can just kill the child. For every mother who doesn't want a child, at least 5-10 sterile couple does want it.

Once again, "its the women" right arguement comes up. Once again it just sounds selfish to me. "Well I had unprotected sex, I wasn't on the pill. So, why should I live with my consequences? I mean I'm sure it won't come back and bite me in the ass in the next life."

WRONG!

You talk about afterlife or reincarnation: a lot of people DON'T believe in either one, and it is their right not to. Also, let's remember that many women are pressured into sex by the men, are taught to be weak by society, and even if they are strong enough to say no, the men can and in many cases will ignore that. Many men will refuse to wear condoms, saying that birth control is the woman's responsibility. Young sexually active teenage girls may not be on the pill because they are afraid to ask their parental units about it, or because their parents/guardians are disgusted by the thought.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say 'god likes abortion' (well, except that I just did... but, you know what I mean...)

BUT: there is biblical precedent for abortion IF the 'father' doesn't object, and IF the 'mother' isn't harmed.

Basically - it is left up to the 'father' to decide if reparation is needed from the aborter, in that case.

What book (in the bible), chapter, and verse?

Luke 1

39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!”

john the baptist, according to the bible was alive, with a soul, while still in the womb.

Well I heard about 500 post about teenage moms and how they are suffering, and how they want to escape the consequences of their action. This is a bad cycle people. If we let them escape the consequences of un-protected sex, then they're just going to do it again. Also allowing them to have sex, get an abortion, and have sex again, its not healthy. It spreads VDs, STDS, etc. We live in an age now where everyone should know the consequences of un-protected sex! Theres no excuse for sexually active women to be off the pill. Theres no excuse for the guy not using a condoms. I say if the woman is going to be careless about not only sex, but her own body and health. Let her have the baby, let her have the consequences of her actions.



I know a young mother who was on the pill and the man who impregnated her was using condoms.

Not everyone who gets pregnant is an idiot. It is rude to assume so.

I also know a family where 3-4 of the kids were concieved while the father used condoms.

Also, not every sexually active woman should be on the pill.. If it is possible, yes use it, but the pill can have many side effects that just can make the woman flat out WHACKY.

What book (in the bible), chapter, and verse?

Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine".

If a man (or men) make a woman's child depart from her, but she is not harmed... he shall ONLY be punished if the husband decides he should - and shall 'pay' as the judges determine.

Thus - if a man causes an abortion, but the 'husband' (assuming she is married... or the 'father', one assumes - if not) doesn't protest - the abortion is biblically valid - so long as the woman is not injured.

Luke 1

39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!”

john the baptist, according to the bible was alive, with a soul, while still in the womb.

It doesn't say that the baby was alive, OR that it had a soul.

To my reading - the 'leaping in the womb' is the same wriggling around ALL babies do in the weeks before they are born.

Just because Elizabeth attributes this 'wriggling' to 'joy', doesn't make it so.

Nor does it prove that babies are 'alive' or 'have souls', in biblical terms.

Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine".

If a man (or men) make a woman's child depart from her, but she is not harmed... he shall ONLY be punished if the husband decides he should - and shall 'pay' as the judges determine.

Thus - if a man causes an abortion, but the 'husband' (assuming she is married... or the 'father', one assumes - if not) doesn't protest - the abortion is biblically valid - so long as the woman is not injured.
I think you're taking the wrong meaning here, try this NIV

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD.
No, you are "killing" a POTENTIAL child. I don't think that week-old clusters of cells count as children. I do not think that anyone is truly alive until brain waves are first established. This occurs roughly 11 weeks after conception.

These ancient laws obviously do not apply. Non christians should understand that to christians the most important law is to love. If you cannot in good conscience and with love kill your unborn child, then you shouldn't do it because it's a sin. It's a pretty simple concept.

2) I'm not scientist but i do know that at the point when most people have an abortion the odds are that the fetus is going to become eventually a human being. So while your not killing a human persay your certainly killing the potential for human life. That's not much better than murder


But now with cloning techniques, any cell from your body could potentially be used to create a new human life.
Taking this to the extreme, you could easily argue that scrubbing off skin cells in the shower is "killing the potential for human life".

(Also as a side note, cells are alive; they're the smallest living units. There are 7 things that things have to have in order to be seen as alive:
Movement (the obvious)
Respiration (deriving energy by breaking down respiratory substrates such as glucose)
Sensitivity (reacting to surroundings)
Growth (obvious)
Reproduction (obvious)
Excretion (removing waste products formed by respiration e.g. carbon dioxide)
Nutrition (taking up nutrients from the surroundings or making them by processes such as photosynthesis).
Cells do all of these things, so yes, when you scrub too hard in the shower you are indeed killing cells, even if you refute the fact that in this case you are killing potential human life).

But now with cloning techniques, any cell from your body could potentially be used to create a new human life.

That's science fiction. Very specific cell types are required for cloning. Sorry, I had to point it out.

But now with cloning techniques, any cell from your body could potentially be used to create a new human life.
Taking this to the extreme, you could easily argue that scrubbing off skin cells in the shower is "killing the potential for human life".

(Also as a side note, cells are alive; they're the smallest living units. There are 7 things that things have to have in order to be seen as alive:
Movement (the obvious)
Respiration (deriving energy by breaking down respiratory substrates such as glucose)
Sensitivity (reacting to surroundings)
Growth (obvious)
Reproduction (obvious)
Excretion (removing waste products formed by respiration e.g. carbon dioxide)
Nutrition (taking up nutrients from the surroundings or making them by processes such as photosynthesis).
Cells do all of these things, so yes, when you scrub too hard in the shower you are indeed killing cells, even if you refute the fact that in this case you are killing potential human life).


They do NOT have the potential to become humans, because they lack an egg, and sperm. Two things that are a must when creating a human. The egg and sperm carries the sex chromosones that no other cell in your bodies carries. So this argument is invalid.

They do NOT have the potential to become humans, because they lack an egg, and sperm. Two things that are a must when creating a human. The egg and sperm carries the sex chromosones that no other cell in your bodies carries. So this argument is invalid.

Good BOY, German! :D

It doesn't say that the baby was alive, OR that it had a soul.

To my reading - the 'leaping in the womb' is the same wriggling around ALL babies do in the weeks before they are born.

Just because Elizabeth attributes this 'wriggling' to 'joy', doesn't make it so.

Nor does it prove that babies are 'alive' or 'have souls', in biblical terms.
How can a person leap for joy if they're not alive, I kniow what you're going to say but I think I'll take Elizabeth's word over yours. The baby john had the holy spirit which caused him to leap for joy in the presence of the virgin mary.

I think you're taking the wrong meaning here, try this NIV

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Yes - I have read that translation - and I don't think it is directly supportable from the Hebrew.

That's just my opinion of course... that this is one of the FEW times that the KJV seems CLOSER to the Hebrew.

I beleive it does. An unborn child is one of the purest life forms out there. It has not sinned, it has not done any wrong. Its a wonderful thing to behold. Once we are birthed, then that pureness is gone. But during the 9 month, the child is essentinally pure. Abortion kills that pureness.

So,isn't it more merciful to kill the pure child,before sin can taint it,than to allow it to grow up and become a LOST soul?Or is the eternal destination less important than being born?If so,why do we need to be saved?When the child is born is it automatically going to hell?Is it condemned before it commits an act of disobedience against scriptures it doesn't even understand?Maybe they just need more angels in heaven? :eek:

They do NOT have the potential to become humans, because they lack an egg, and sperm. Two things that are a must when creating a human. The egg and sperm carries the sex chromosones that no other cell in your bodies carries. So this argument is invalid.


Missed the cloning part eh?

They do NOT have the potential to become humans, because they lack an egg, and sperm. Two things that are a must when creating a human. The egg and sperm carries the sex chromosones that no other cell in your bodies carries. So this argument is invalid.

Untrue. Parthenogenesis only requires an egg. Sperm is not needed for fertilisation. Cloning can be done without eggs from the donor.

How can a person leap for joy if they're not alive, I kniow what you're going to say but I think I'll take Elizabeth's word over yours. The baby john had the holy spirit which caused him to leap for joy in the presence of the virgin mary.

First: You aren't taking Elizabeth's word for it - are you... you are taking the word of a gospel writers account of an event at which he WAS NOT PRESENT, where he is reporting what Elizabeth is ALLEGED to have said.

Second: Sure - trust Elizabeth, by all means. But just because SHE thought it was the baby jumping for joy, doesn't make it so.

Third: Re-read the material. Luke 1:44 clearly states that it is Elizabeth that is filled with the holy spirit, not the feotal John. "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"

You really should at least READ the bible, before you argue it.

Untrue. Parthenogenesis only requires an egg. Sperm is not needed for fertilisation. Cloning can be done without eggs from the donor.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about cloning. I am talking only about the natural way to create a human life.

Yes - I have read that translation - and I don't think it is directly supportable from the Hebrew.

That's just my opinion of course... that this is one of the FEW times that the KJV seems CLOSER to the Hebrew.
Everything from verse 22 to vers 35 has to do with personal injury and accidents, they are not talking about purposeful abortion but accidental.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about cloning. I am talking only about the natural way to create a human life.

Interesting, so is it okay to abort clones?

Did you know the brain activity of a newborn child is significantly less than that of the average pig? Taking that into account, abortion doesn't seem like something to get too upset about.
When you're born, you are not a person, you're not even a very intelligent animal (in fact, you're not actually you). It's only though experience and learning that you become an individuel. Your memories are what make you who you are, so the logical conclusion is that baby in the womb is next to nothing as far as their mind is concerned.
Remember, a human is just another form of life and life is cheap. People are what are important. The mind exists as the ghost in the machine, a contruct of cummulative information encoded into the brain's neural pathways. New information moves through these pathways and, because we all have different experiences, the pathways are always unique and cause us to respond differently to the same situations. This is what creates our individuality and what has let to such joyful arguements as this... Of course, no information = no individuel. If a feotus is a person, all feotuses are identical people, so killing one is just like erasing one of countless copies.
I don't buy the whole killing 'potensial people' theory either. If you follow that to its logical conclusion you are killing hundreds people simple by not having sex at every available oppertunity without contreception. Giving people who don't exist rights is just stupid.

Everything from verse 22 to vers 35 has to do with personal injury and accidents, they are not talking about purposeful abortion but accidental.

Not at all - the whole passage is about causing injuries... Verses 18-19 clearly describes the penalty for striking another man, while verse 20 describes the punishment for beating a slave to death.

In that context - there is no reason to assume that the 'abortion' clause ONLY applies to accidents.

First: You aren't taking Elizabeth's word for it - are you... you are taking the word of a gospel writers account of an event at which he WAS NOT PRESENT, where he is reporting what Elizabeth is ALLEGED to have said.

Second: Sure - trust Elizabeth, by all means. But just because SHE thought it was the baby jumping for joy, doesn't make it so.

Third: Re-read the material. Luke 1:44 clearly states that it is Elizabeth that is filled with the holy spirit, not the feotal John. "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"

You really should at least READ the bible, before you argue it.
The passage we are debating is intended to foreshadow the relationship between the adult Jesus and John. Elizabeth was filled with the spirit because her faith was strengthend when the baby leapt because mary entered the room. John's destiny was to pave the way for Jesus, and he started his work right at that moment. The event greatly strengthened mary and elizabeth's confidence, faith and resolve and caused them both to praise god.

Interesting, so is it okay to abort clones?

Another thought,do they get a cloned spirit?Is it gods will to clone,to donate organs,to receive donated organs?Can a christian/muslim/hebrew be cloned?
Does anyone care? :eek:

Another thought,do they get a cloned spirit?Is it gods will to clone,to donate organs,to receive donated organs?Can a christian/muslim/hebrew be cloned?
Does anyone care? :eek:
Oh, let's not go into that. Then we have to debate the headache of clone rights and who's the parents, blah, blah blah... :rolleyes:

The passage we are debating is intended to foreshadow the relationship between the adult Jesus and John. Elizabeth was filled with the spirit because her faith was strengthend when the baby leapt because mary entered the room. John's destiny was to pave the way for Jesus, and he started his work right at that moment. The event greatly strengthened mary and elizabeth's confidence, faith and resolve and caused them both to praise god.

None of which means that the foetus did INDEED jump... or that it was 'for joy'... or that a foetus is 'alive'... or that it 'has a soul'.

Everything about the way you just described it, supports the claim that Elizabeth felt the baby move, and felt blessed... none of which has anything to do with the foetus itself, or it's alleged gymnastics, or motivations for them.

And, of course - by claiming that this passage 'foreshadows' a relationship - you are weakening the case for this being a description of a real historical event. (Which, since the writer of the account wasn't there... is a shaky premise to start with).

None of which means that the foetus did INDEED jump... or that it was 'for joy'... or that a foetus is 'alive'... or that it 'has a soul'.

Everything about the way you just described it, supports the claim that Elizabeth felt the baby move, and felt blessed... none of which has anything to do with the foetus itself, or it's alleged gymnastics, or motivations for them.

And, of course - by claiming that this passage 'foreshadows' a relationship - you are weakening the case for this being a description of a real historical event. (Which, since the writer of the account wasn't there... is a shaky premise to start with).
Your basically saying that you dont believe what the bible says, well that's fine I dont care if you believe it or not. The bible says that john the baptist leapt for joy as a fetus. I believe it. The only reason I even posted here is because it seemed like you were trying to use the bible to to prove abortion is not a sin. Well if you dont believe the bible then you certainly cant use it to prove your point. Again, the most important law for a christian is to love. Thus If you can not with good conscience and love kill your unborn baby then its a sin.

A lot of stories in the bible foreshadow something, it dosent mean that the stories are all fabrications.

A lot of stories in the bible foreshadow something, it dosent mean that the stories are all fabrications.

Exactly, the death and resurrection of Lazarus (I know I didn't spell it right), foreshows the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I would like to meet some pro-choicers who would be happy not to have lived at all.

I come from a very large family and would have preferred not to have been born. :rolleyes:

Exactly, the death and resurrection of Lazarus (I know I didn't spell it right), foreshows the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No, the being swallowed by a fish and then vomited onto a beach foreshadow Jesus' death and ressurection. :D Matthew 12 v 39-41.

Your basically saying that you dont believe what the bible says, well that's fine I dont care if you believe it or not. The bible says that john the baptist leapt for joy as a fetus. I believe it. The only reason I even posted here is because it seemed like you were trying to use the bible to to prove abortion is not a sin. Well if you dont believe the bible then you certainly cant use it to prove your point. Again, the most important law for a christian is to love. Thus If you can not with good conscience and love kill your unborn baby then its a sin.

No.
It doesn't.

It says that Elizabeth SAYS the baby 'leaped for joy'.... do you not see the difference? The bible text - as in non-character narrative - DOES NOT make that claim... only Elizabeth does.

You are allowing what you WANT to believe, to colour your interpretation of what is reported in the text.

You quoted THIS verse to 'prove' that foetuses are alive, or have a soul?

I do not think THIS passage supports that claim, and I have explained why.

Just banging on and on about 'I believe it', while ignoring the fact that we are ONLY talking about a report of what someone SAID, does nothing to validate your claim.

Exactly, the death and resurrection of Lazarus (I know I didn't spell it right), foreshows the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I totally disagree.

Lazarus needed help, from an outside source.

Jesus was able to raise himself, surely?

I totally disagree.

Lazarus needed help, from an outside source.

Jesus was able to raise himself, surely?

Well its lent, and this story is only read during lent season, so I assume that it has to do something with Good Friday and Easter.

Well its lent, and this story is only read during lent season, so I assume that it has to do something with Good Friday and Easter.

Oh I see! So... YOU believe that the importance of a piece of scripture is somehow determined by when it is read?

I would just like to say this.

Prove that a foetus, or anyone for that matter, has a soul.

Religion should only be in the decision making process about an abortion if the woman considering getting an abortion is religious. The decision to have an abortion should be the woman's and her decision will depend on her own personal beliefs and experiences.

Just because Christians (or any other religious/non-religious person) says that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.

No.
It doesn't.

It says that Elizabeth SAYS the baby 'leaped for joy'.... do you not see the difference? The bible text - as in non-character narrative - DOES NOT make that claim... only Elizabeth does.

You are allowing what you WANT to believe, to colour your interpretation of what is reported in the text.

You quoted THIS verse to 'prove' that foetuses are alive, or have a soul?

I do not think THIS passage supports that claim, and I have explained why.

Just banging on and on about 'I believe it', while ignoring the fact that we are ONLY talking about a report of what someone SAID, does nothing to validate your claim.
I am a christian, christians believe that the bible is true. The gospel of luke is part of the bible. The gospel of luke chapter 1 vers 44 says that elizabeth said that the fetus john jumped for joy. I cant figure out how you cant understand this. It is not possible for a soulless non living thing to jump for joy.

I am a christian, christians believe that the bible is true. The gospel of luke is part of the bible. The gospel of luke chapter 1 vers 44 says that elizabeth said that the fetus john jumped for joy. I cant figure out how you cant understand this. It is not possible for a soulless non living thing to jump for joy.

Yes. It says that she says. It does not say that she is right.

I would just like to say this.

Prove that a foetus, or anyone for that matter, has a soul.

Religion should only be in the decision making process about an abortion if the woman considering getting an abortion is religious. The decision to have an abortion should be the woman's and her decision will depend on her own personal beliefs and experiences.

Just because Christians (or any other religious/non-religious person) says that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.
I only brought religion into this discussion to try to disprove GI's false teaching on exodus.

Yes. It says that she says. It does not say that she is right.
I happen to trust what the mother of John the Baptist says, I also trust that luke didn't include any lies in his gospel. Again I do not expect any non christian to agree, I'm just trying to explain why I think what I think. You cannot use the bible to prove abortion is not a sin. You'll have to write your own book if that's what you want to prove.

My question is why? Why have an abortion when you could as easily give the child up for adoption, or keep it if you think you are capable?

Women and men both have a choice. They choice they make is whether or not to have sex. If they choose to have sex then they better be ready to deal with the consequences of that choice. It seems awfully irresponsible to just abort the results of your act. Just because people may wish they never had gotten pregnat doesnt mean that a child needs to suffer over it. Give it up for adoption, there are plenty of families willing to raise your baby if you dont think you can.

I happen to trust what the mother of John the Baptist says, I also trust that luke didn't include any lies in his gospel.

You mean "that luke didn't include a spoken untruth" in his gospel I assume ?

But I will not challenge your point, since where my own arguments are concerned it is moot. The fetus was 6 months old already:

36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

At that point it already has a nervous system, and therefor can be said to be harmed by abortion. This does not mean the same is true for something that was conceived the day before.

I'm an atheist. I dont believe in all that afterlife crap. man made god because man needed some sort of authority figure that could explain the unexplainable. now we have science. abortion is the right of the pregnant woman because she is the one that has the responsability of the baby, and abortion is one of the ways out of having the baby, definitly the easier one but still a better choice than leaving the baby in a dumpster (this happened to my cousin from India (adopted)) so really the question is this: would you rather have an abortion before the "baby" is really even a person mentally, or would you rather put the baby up for adoption? being in an orphanage can be, in my knowledge, a living hell, possibly, like my other cousin's sister (he is adopted from Russia) who was never adopted and then thrown out of the orphanage at age 16 to fend for herself. her mother definitly couldn't have afforded the abortion had the opportunity come by, anyway.

my cousin adopted from russia... his mother was a prostitute for lack of other job options. so sex was clearly unavoidable. she was murdered in front of him.

OK, well im happy that your cousins were adopted and not aborted or you would not have the chance to know them. Also, they were in two pretty crappy countries comparitively to us. Orphanages in America are not what they were like in the story of OLIVER. Also, we have a pretty good screening process for potential families. IM sorry about your cousin's plight, but ask them if they are happy they were born.

The egg and sperm carries the sex chromosones that no other cell in your bodies carries. So this argument is invalid.
um, you need a SERIOUS lesson in human genetics. the nuclei of normal, complete human cells contain 22 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes.

OK, well im happy that your cousins were adopted and not aborted or you would not have the chance to know them. Also, they were in two pretty crappy countries comparitively to us. Orphanages in America are not what they were like in the story of OLIVER. Also, we have a pretty good screening process for potential families. IM sorry about your cousin's plight, but ask them if they are happy they were born.
asking people if they are happy they were born is useless for this debate, unless you have the ability to ask all un-fertilized eggs if they are happy they were excreted during their "mother's" period.

asking people if they are happy they were born is useless for this debate, unless you have the ability to ask all un-fertilized eggs if they are happy they were excreted during their "mother's" period.

Well i guess thats its good that it isnt my main point. My main point is if you can have adoption as a viable choice, why not do it?

I beleive it does. An unborn child is one of the purest life forms out there. It has not sinned, it has not done any wrong. Its a wonderful thing to behold. Once we are birthed, then that pureness is gone. But during the 9 month, the child is essentinally pure. Abortion kills that pureness.

I am also Catholic and I HATE this argument about purity (the word is PURITY, NOT PURENESS.)

We are on the Earth to cleanse our souls and become closer to God, if you read the New Testament with any acceptance of the difficulties it poses. If said fetus were MEANT to be a "pure" human being, then it would be born as such, right? Why are you so obsessed with something that by God's will is NOT supposed to be? What? Keep it "pure" just so it can enter the world and become a dirty thing? What is the POINT of preserving so-called "purity?"

The point is, there is no point. This is a DUMB argument for opposing abortion, because it doesn't MATTER if a fetus is "pure" or not: none of us nor it will benefit from it. As second point to consider, if life starts at conception...then the fetus is already "impure" because it is a human being already. If it's human, it has sinned, that's how the Bible goes.

Now, you can argue murder or immorality or what have you on other grounds, but for God's sake, kill the purity argument. It's stupid, it's pointless, and it's on extremely shaky theological as well as moral ground.

I am, BTW, pro-choice. I am Catholic and against abortion for myself. I cannot, and will not, impose my personal views on any other woman who finds herself in such a difficult position.


Ge-Ren

I would just like to say this.

Prove that a foetus, or anyone for that matter, has a soul.

Religion should only be in the decision making process about an abortion if the woman considering getting an abortion is religious. The decision to have an abortion should be the woman's and her decision will depend on her own personal beliefs and experiences.

Just because Christians (or any other religious/non-religious person) says that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.

Well God or whoever you believe to be the creator, says its wrong. His law is superior to man's law.

Well God or whoever you believe to be the creator, says its wrong. His law is superior to man's law.
That arguement will get you nowhere will atheists, and the same most likely applies to the majority of agnostics. You cannot dictate what someone else's higher power(s) say. I'm sure they'd be glad to inform you, though. :)

That arguement will get you nowhere will atheists, and the same most likely applies to the majority of agnostics. You cannot dictate what someone else's higher power(s) say. I'm sure they'd be glad to inform you, though. :)

Well this is not only a moral on the human level argument for me, but a spiritual one.

Well this is not only a moral on the human level argument for me, but a spiritual one.
Of course, but surely you recognize that not everyone's spirtuality is the same as yours? :eek:

Well i guess thats its good that it isnt my main point. My main point is if you can have adoption as a viable choice, why not do it?

because sometimes people just don't get adopted. and then they get kicked out of the orphanage, and then what?

also you're saying that you think it would have been better to dump the at least 35,485,780 (estimate 1973-1998) abortion children into orphanages? yea that would have gone over reaaaaal well.

Well God or whoever you believe to be the creator, says its wrong. His law is superior to man's law.

My god doesn't seem to think so. Thus, another argument is nullified.

Of course, but surely you recognize that not everyone's spirtuality is the same as yours? :eek:

Yes, and I am trying to respect that.

because sometimes people just don't get adopted. and then they get kicked out of the orphanage, and then what?

Ok ok , but you are not comprehending. IM saying in america, where we do have good adoption policies and we really try not to just kick people out i think its a good alternative to abortion. A million babies eache year are aborted. There are easily that many families willing to adopt. Why not try? IM not saying any of this is easy. It shouldnt be since most ofthese unwanted pregnancies are the result of a broken condom or a drunken night in a car (god i know about that). If you are going to take that risk, than accept responsibility. Dont abort if there is a nother choice

Ok ok , but you are not comprehending. IM saying in america, where we do have good adoption policies and we really try not to just kick people out i think its a good alternative to abortion. A million babies eache year are aborted. There are easily that many families willing to adopt. Why not try? IM not saying any of this is easy. It shouldnt be since most ofthese unwanted pregnancies are the result of a broken condom or a drunken night in a car (god i know about that). If you are going to take that risk, than accept responsibility. Dont abort if there is a nother choice

you would wish there were that many families but there just aren't! and as i already stated, 35,485,780 estimated abortions from 1973-1998...

My god doesn't seem to think so. Thus, another argument is nullified.

can we try to make rebuttals a little more than a sentance? I have a hard time trying to to debate an issue when my opponents use these pithy oneliners. Maybe its just me, but thats how i work i guess. Sorry forthe inconvenience.

you would wish there were that many families but there just aren't! and as i already stated, 35,485,780 estimated abortions from 1973-1998...

Does that mean abortion is tha only way out? I dont think so. First. Maybe we shouldnt havethis many unwanted pregnancies. Right? If we get rid of that, abortion or adoption doesnt need to be an issue.

Also, you quoted numbers for how many abortionsthere are but not the waiting lists for families who want to adopt.

It seems to me you find adoption more abhorrent than abortion. I can never understand that. I know aborn child has more potential than an unborn one and i want as many children to havethat chance as possible.

Well this is not only a moral on the human level argument for me, but a spiritual one.
You see, this is the problem with this thread. It is a foregone conclusion. You believe that the God of your spiritual framework forbids abortion. We cannot disprove your spiritual frmaework while working within it, and attempts from without don't mean anything to you by the nature of the spiritual framework itself. So, the only way to justify abortion would be to disprove the existance of God, and if I understand your religion correctly, you hold that God is above human logic and human thought.

We cannot hold an argument meaningful to you, because your spiritual framework does not allow it. That may or may not be a bad thing, but it does mean that there is really no way I can conceive of anyone convincing you short of you changing or losing that spiritual framework which you hold.

can we try to make rebuttals a little more than a sentance? I have a hard time trying to to debate an issue when my opponents use these pithy oneliners. Maybe its just me, but thats how i work i guess. Sorry forthe inconvenience.


When argument I responded to (you couldn't possibly have missed it, as I quoted it) is only one sentence, I hardly think I'm obligated to write much more when a sentence no longer than it is will completely destroy it.

German Kingdoms made a one sentence argument, and I invalidated it in another sentence. Criticizing me for replying in kind to his/her statement is blatant hypocrisy.

GK said basically "God or whoever you think is the creator says it's wrong and it's against his law."
I responded by simply stating that this is not true.

Yes, and I am trying to respect that.

Thank you :) So do you agree that
a. In a society not founded on the principles of a single religion, but containing multiple groups with different beliefs, religious arguments have no place in law ?
b. if we ignore spiritual arguments, like God says this or the existance of a soul, there is nothing wrong with abortion an sich since noone gets harmed ?

If so, the next question would be if making abortion easily available will have an adverse effect on society, like people getting careless with contraception which may indeed promote STDs. Or not. I need to see reports on that.

1) I think fetuses are alive when you can kill the and abort their lives.(aka:conception)
2) Is it worse to kill a 3 year old than a 5 year old? I would like to think not. So, assuming this is agreed upon, why is 9 months or so a bigger difference that 2 years?
3) Just use some protection if you're not willing to raise it... or give it up for adoption... or, and this is revolutionary, raise the being you brought into the world.
4) To those who say "What about rape victims?" I say, use aDOPtion. And if you can't differentiate between the raper and a minute being and cannot handle the stress of bearing the child, I doubt your capacity to judge the value of said being's life... or a stick of gum for that matter.

So, let the flames against me begin. ;)

1) I think fetuses are alive when you can kill the and abort their lives.(aka:conception)

(Almost) everybody agrees on this. However, skincells are also alive. We kill those often. Same goes for animals that are far further developed than the foetus. So killing something is not a crime an sich.

2) Is it worse to kill a 3 year old than a 5 year old? I would like to think not. So, assuming this is agreed upon, why is 9 months or so a bigger difference that 2 years?

It isn't for most people. However, 1 day old or so is. The foetus does not resemble a human then. It cannot feel anything. It is not something that can get hurt.

3) Just use some protection if you're not willing to raise it... or give it up for adoption... or, and this is revolutionary, raise the being you brought into the world.

Protection is not perfect.

4) To those who say "What about rape victims?" I say, use aDOPtion. And if you can't differentiate between the raper and a minute being and cannot handle the stress of bearing the child, I doubt your capacity to judge the value of said being's life... or a stick of gum for that matter.
Are you female ?
Have you been raped and forced to carry a rapist child ?
No ?
Then your opinion on this means little. Walk a mile in their shoes first.

let the flames against me begin. ;)
Hre you go ;)

Nice ad hominem.

Are you female ?
Have you been raped and forced to carry a rapist child ?
No ?
Then your opinion on this means little. Walk a mile in their shoes first.
No, I am not a girl. But have you ever been a fetus? I have, and I am convinced you have also. Have you ever been aborted? No? I didn't think so. So, I can't realy understand a female rape victim, yet that victim is somehow capable of understanding an aborted child enough to... well, kill it? Hmmm... anyone else not get that?

So, I can't realy understand a female rape victim, yet that victim is somehow capable of understanding an aborted child enough to... well, kill it? Hmmm... anyone else not get that?

A foetus in the stages of pregnancy where people wish abortion to be legal cannot think or feel (unless you believe in souls that enter it upon conception). So what is there to understand ?
The mother OTOH does have feelings.

So the difference between murder and convenience is measurable by a month?

So the difference between murder and convenience is measurable by a month?

hey. thats a good quote.

That's seriously a quote? Who said it?

So the difference between murder and convenience is measurable by a month?

The difference between killing and murdering is, yes - depending on your definition of what is human and what is not.
Well, actually one should look at the current state of development of the foetus - which just happens to be quite consistent for most over time.

Well God or whoever you believe to be the creator, says its wrong. His law is superior to man's law.

I'm sorry, I don't recall the part of the Bible that says abortion is murder. Could you perhaps point it out to me?

This is not a theocracy. Your religious beliefs have absolutely no bearing on my choices. I don't have to convince you it's right. It's my body, and I make the decisions concerning it. Keep your holy book off my body. All I require is that enough people in this country realize that imposing their religious beliefs on someone else is against everything this country stands for.
Against abortion? Don't have one.

the problem is that biology doesnt define borders, humans have to do it. the fetus is always alive, as well as all those million sperm cells who came second. and noone complains about that. the zygota is alive before it nested in the womb, and is afterwards. often the body kills the fetus itself by refusing the nesting or pushing it off after a few days. noone would consider this a murder...

BUT in theses stages the fetus doesnt FEEL anything due to the lack of a nervous system. In my opinion this is a point where you can abort, because theres nothing more than a lump of cells.
alive, there are always alive, in my eyes this is not a rational argument. and as it is the mother that has to give birth in raise the child, it is her decision I'd say.

The difference between killing and murdering is, yes - depending on your definition of what is human and what is not.
Well, actually one should look at the current state of development of the foetus - which just happens to be quite consistent for most over time.
I'm sorry, but I have to see killing something completely helpless to be murder. If you think it is not alive, please stick to that. If you think it is a living being, but it is merely a convenient killing, try to stick with that. If you are willing to let their brains be scrambled, I would prefer if you at least make yourself easily understandable to me, since they will never be able to read this.

...Brains be scrambled?

In most cases, there's no brain yet.

--

Here's the trick. Why the hell should anyone be forced to produce an entity, which will lead to the ruining of their life, the ruining of their ability to produce more successful and perhaps more NUMEROUS offspring in the future, and which will itself most likely be much less succesful than wanted offspring, partially due to said ruining, and partially due to the details of that ruining (lack of planning, and, in many cases, full education and job with benefits).

Forcing birth leads to screwed up kids, single moms who may spend a great deal of time wishing to abort -themselves- because of their situation, and, because people have an amazing habit of repeating mistakes, those screwed up kids doing the same damned thing.

Think long term.

And remember, adoption doesn't work that bloody well right now.

I'm sorry, but I have to see killing something completely helpless to be murder. If you think it is not alive, please stick to that. If you think it is a living being, but it is merely a convenient killing, try to stick with that.

I consider a foetus to be alive. I also consider several cells of my body to be alive. I consider cancercells to be alive. Yet noone objects when I kill one of those living things. Why ? Because they can't feel anything.

Similarly I eat things that were killed for me daily. Some people object to the meat, because the animals had feelings, and were therefor harmed by appearing on my plate. They have a valid point. Yet society does not consider this murder, even though the animals (and some plants) that I eat were vastly more developed than a foetus.

I do not consider something without feelings or thoughts (or without a brain for that matter) to be human. This does not mean it is not alive, it only means that killing it is not murder.

I consider a foetus to be alive. I also consider several cells of my body to be alive. I consider cancercells to be alive. Yet noone objects when I kill one of those living things. Why ? Because they can't feel anything.

Similarly I eat things that were killed for me daily. Some people object to the meat, because the animals had feelings, and were therefor harmed by appearing on my plate. They have a valid point. Yet society does not consider this murder, even though the animals (and some plants) that I eat were vastly more developed than a foetus.

I do not consider something without feelings or thoughts (or without a brain for that matter) to be human. This does not mean it is not alive, it only means that killing it is not murder.


Well, here is why I think that is not relevant.

When I think of someone killing a cow so I can enjoy a burger: I feel hungry, or don't care. It varies

When I think of someone scrameling a fetuses brain becaus... they... don't want it is usualy the reason I guess...: I fell unhappy and disgusted about it, and slightly angry on occasion.

I consider a foetus to be alive. I also consider several cells of my body to be alive. I consider cancercells to be alive. Yet noone objects when I kill one of those living things. Why ? Because they can't feel anything.

Those cells are different from something that will become a human being. Those cells will remain cells, the fetus will develop into a human being.

When I think of someone scrameling a fetuses brain becaus... they... don't want it is usualy the reason I guess...: I fell unhappy and disgusted about it, and slightly angry on occasion.

First, as said, it has no brain.
Secondly... what mental image (image in your mind before we get a misunderstanding) do you have of the thing that gets aborted ? Do you see a little helpless proto-human, or do you see a rather formless lump of cells ?

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

I am a tolerant atheist, but this crosses the line between speaking from a position of faith and pure bigotry.

1) Why throw satanists and atheists together? They are two totally different things. That's like putting Frenchmen with Saudis and saying they're the same!

2) Many atheists disprove of abortion just as much as Roman Catholics.

3) Why emphasise DEVOTED? Do you think that one word suddenly makes all of your words absolutely true?!

4) The afterlife is as yet unproven so mentioning it in this conversation is pure ludicrousness!

Get out of the 17th century and grow up.

Those cells are different from something that will become a human being. Those cells will remain cells, the fetus will develop into a human being.

They might grow up to be a human being. At this moment they are not.

First, as said, it has no brain.
Secondly... what mental image (image in your mind before we get a misunderstanding) do you have of the thing that gets aborted ? Do you see a little helpless proto-human, or do you see a rather formless lump of cells ?


I don't form an image. The fact that a soon-to-be-human (full set of those chromosome thingies and everything) is being murdered is enough, and even too much, for me in itself.

I don't form an image. The fact that a soon-to-be-human (full set of those chromosome thingies and everything) is being murdered is enough, and even too much, for me in itself.

Why ? It is not harmed in any way. It has had no experiences, nor does it have expectations for the future. It will not feel pain when it dies. It will in fact not feel anything and never has felt anything during the brief period of its existence. Other than your "gut feeling" - what is the difference between it never having been conceived or not allowing it to reach life for the foetus itself ? Did it have a right to be conceived ?

Why ? It is not harmed in any way. It has had no experiences, nor does it have expectations for the future. It will not feel pain when it dies. It will in fact not feel anything and never has felt anything during the brief period of its existence. Other than your "gut feeling" - what is the difference between it never having been conceived or not allowing it to reach life for the foetus itself ? Did it have a right to be conceived ?

If it is aborted, then there is a cutting off of potential human life. A life that would have been.

Why ? It is not harmed in any way. It has had no experiences, nor does it have expectations for the future. It will not feel pain when it dies. It will in fact not feel anything and never has felt anything during the brief period of its existence. Other than your "gut feeling" - what is the difference between it never having been conceived or not allowing it to reach life for the foetus itself ? Did it have a right to be conceived ?
1) I feel it should have a chance to have those experiences
2) The fact that it was concieved is in itself the difference, an a pretty big one too me
3) No, it had no right to be, but it was. So now that it has, I think it has a right to be born.

If it is aborted, then there is a cutting off of potential human life. A life that would have been.

How is that different from abstaining from sex?

How is that different from abstaining from sex?

Because the fetus is developing. Abstaining from sex is not the same as killing a developing baby. No sex - life never was, abortion - life was kept from developing.

A mature, released egg is half of a developing baby, a mature, released sperm is the other half.

Whether with early term abortion or abstinence, there is no baby, and there is no pain whatsoever.

What is the difference?

Think of it like a timer.

Whether you stop it at five years, or five seconds, so long as you stop it before it goes off, you have -stopped- it.

No difference.

A mature, released egg is half of a developing baby, a mature, released sperm is the other half.

Whether with early term abortion or abstinence, there is no baby, and there is no pain whatsoever.

What is the difference?

Think of it like a timer.

Whether you stop it at five years, or five seconds, so long as you stop it before it goes off, you have -stopped- it.

No difference.

I do see a difference. Most do not consider the Ovum to be alive, nor the Spermatozoon. After conception the Ovum is fertilized; the zygote has all the criteria to establish biological life. Not having sex is not halting a developing life, abortion is.

Ovum are alive, sperm are alive. They are not individual -organisms-, like liver cells are not individual -organisms-, but they are certainly alive in the scientific sense.

Though I do find it funny that your argument works the same way the person/not person one does.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

I have no intention of trying to convince you to support abortion, it's clearly against your principles. That's the beauty of choice, you are just as free not to have an abortion as those that wish to have one are free to go ahead with it.

1) I feel it should have a chance to have those experiences
2) The fact that it was concieved is in itself the difference, an a pretty big one too me
3) No, it had no right to be, but it was. So now that it has, I think it has a right to be born.

But 2 and 3 are *your* perspective. For the foetus itself it makes no difference if it wasn't conceived or isn't allowed to develop enough to get experiences. For the reluctant mother it does.

1 is tricky ground. Not just because of the "non concieving vs non-experiences-yet" argument, but because it assumes that having experiences or Life with a capital L will always be better than not having existed. Is this e.g. true for a baby with genetic defects, that will never develop enough mental capacity to have real thought, but is capable of feeling excrutiating pain in its deformed body without hope of cure ? Hope it itself cannot feel ?Or would it be better to abort it before the pain begins. These things really happen btw.

Taking it even further... could someone who has been on average more unhappy than happy be said to have been better off if he hadn't been born ? Or is this an invalid comparison ? If it is.. why can you compare a potential human with a real one ?

I think abortion should be legalised up to the age of 18, that way if the kids misbehave or don't tidy their bedrooms you can threaten them with being aborted!

Ovum are alive, sperm are alive. They are not individual -organisms-, like liver cells are not individual -organisms-, but they are certainly alive in the scientific sense.

Though I do find it funny that your argument works the same way the person/not person one does.

The definition of an organism is a living, natural, individual being, whose parts are coordinated among themselves and subordinated to the independent and self serving functions of the whole. A single gamete will not result in life. The zygote is the first stage of the offsprings existance. It is the fusion of the two gametes that is required for life. Biologists agree that, even from the zygote stage, the conceptus behaves as an independent, though immature, organism, developing itself from within, needing the mother, now, only by way of environment. An ovum is not a human person. A spermatozoa is not a human person. After conception thefertilized ovum is a form of human life. The sperm and ovum have only half the needed chromosomes of human beings, once they unite, they make a single living cell of 46 chromosomes.

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. " (Arey, Developmental Anatomy)

"Individual life begins with conception by the union of gametes or sex cells...Growth and development continue thereafter…" (Brookes and Zietman, Clinical Embryology, 1998)

"The beginning of the development of a new individual is the fusion of …sperm and ovum… the result of this fusion is the formation of the first cell of the new individual, the zygote." (Hamilton and Mossman, Human Embryology).

Consider the fact that a great deal of pregnancies end in miscarriages, as stated here:

http://www.womens-health.co.uk/miscarr.asp

The risk of miscarriage decreases as pregnancy progresses. It is possible that as many as 50% of pregnancies miscarry before implantation in the womb occurs. Early after implantation, pregnancy loss rate is about 30% (ie this is still before a pregnancy is clinically recognised). After a pregnancy may be clinically recognised (between days 35-50), about 25% will end in miscarriage. The risk of miscarriage decreases dramatically after the 8th week as the weeks go by.

Now given that Catholics believe in sin from birth (before being baptised), that would imply that God, through his own design of the human being, condemns at least a fourth of all babies, if it indeed is a life at conception.

So, that leads to the conclusion that:

A: God's an asshole that likes watching babies burn
or
B: It's not a life until it is actually born.

Abortion is murder. I am personally very pro-life and I feel for a woman who is pregnant and it is an "inconvenience". However, so many programs exist to pay for her pregnancy (I volunteer with them alot), and there is an extremely long waiting list to adopt a newborn.

I think that someone who commits an abortion and does not repent will face consequences in the afterlife, but as I am not God I condemn no one. I, like everyone else, am a sinner and it is not my place to condemn people. However, God in his infinite love will forgive anyone who seeks it, and so someone who kills can always find forgiveness with God.

Women have rights, but the most fundamental right (for a woman or man) is the right to life. From that all other rights come. It is impossible to deny (on scientific or religious grounds) that a fetus/embryo/not-yet-born-child is not a human life. We therefore must ensure that it as well as its mother is well taken care of. One of my biggest problems with planned parenthood is, at many times, its poor treatment of women. The pro-life establishment cares much more about the welfare of women, than abortion clinics do. In fact most pro-life organizations offer post-abortion counseling to help women. Very very few (if any) "pro-choice" organizations offer counseling.

I would post more on this but I am tired, as well as a new father and so I must go, most likely to edit this and add to it later.

As for cromotar, arguing that a 4th of all lives end in miscarriage means babys are not alive is the same as if I took any age group and stated the percentage that dies before reaching it. Or that a country with a high mortality rate is populated by non persons. Its a weak argument. God's "perfect plan" is corrupted by the choices that we make within our free will. Bad things do not happen because of God, but rather because of how we reject him.

Sorry its a poor argument, but I am really tired and will edit later.

The definition of an organism is a living, natural, individual being, whose parts are coordinated among themselves and subordinated to the independent and self serving functions of the whole.


Bad definition. "Natural" suggests that gene-tweaked mice aren't organisms.


A single gamete will not result in life.


Two matching gametes will. Are you suggesting that if I cut an organism's arm off, splitting it in two, it is no longer to be protected?


The zygote is the first stage of the offsprings existance.


As an organism. It existed as two gametes prior.


It is the fusion of the two gametes that is required for life.


Nope. Cells are alive individually. They're just not organisms unless they're specifically single-celled organisms.


Biologists agree that,


Loaded term. How many out of the whole?


even from the zygote stage, the conceptus behaves as an independent, though immature, organism, developing itself from within, needing the mother, now, only by way of environment.


How is this different from a cancer cluster? It only needs the human body as an environment, and it otherwise grows on its own.


An ovum is not a human person.


An human ovum is a human cell, and has the potential to become a person when combined with a sperm. Do note, a fetus not provided with chemicals will also not develop in to a person.

Person is a political term.


A spermatozoa is not a human person.


See above.


After conception thefertilized ovum is a form of human life.


So is a cancer. Its alive, and its made wholly of human cells.


The sperm and ovum have only half the needed chromosomes of human beings, once they unite, they make a single living cell of 46 chromosomes.


Yes, they become the beginnings of an organism.


"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. " (Arey, Developmental Anatomy)


Which also works for animals.


"Individual life begins with conception by the union of gametes or sex cells...Growth and development continue thereafter…" (Brookes and Zietman, Clinical Embryology, 1998)


Yes, INDIVIDUAL life. Life as two different gametes is prior.


"The beginning of the development of a new individual is the fusion of …sperm and ovum… the result of this fusion is the formation of the first cell of the new individual, the zygote." (Hamilton and Mossman, Human Embryology).

Again, INDIVIDUAL. Prior, it is a dual-formed potential entity. Just like with any animal.

Pirate: The issues are:

"Is it a person?"

"If it is, does that person's right to life supercede a woman's right to her own body?"

Does the government have the right to enforce the use of your crotch?

As for cromotar, arguing that a 4th of all lives end in miscarriage means babys are not alive is the same as if I took any age group and stated the percentage that dies before reaching it. Or that a country with a high mortality rate is populated by non persons. Its a weak argument. God's "perfect plan" is corrupted by the choices that we make within our free will. Bad things do not happen because of God, but rather because of how we reject him.

Sorry its a poor argument, but I am really tired and will edit later.

You can't compare it that way. Once born, people die from circumstances in the environment around them. In miscarriages, the embryo usually (not always, in some cases it's because of the mother using drugs or whatnot) dies without any external influence, due simply to a faulty reproductive system. It has nothing to do with free will. It's simply "God's design". The arguments stands.

You can't compare it that way. Once born, people die from circumstances in the environment around them. In miscarriages, the embryo usually (not always, in some cases it's because of the mother using drugs or whatnot) dies without any external influence, due simply to a faulty reproductive system. It has nothing to do with free will. It's simply "God's design". The arguments stands.
It is actually usually due to environmental factors, or genetic ones. Drugs are part of it, but more often are much smaller things, like not eating enough vitamins, and the largest percentage are due to genetic malformations.

It's property rights. A landlord can evict a tennant in the dead of winter for non-payment regardless of whether or not he has somewhere to go. The tennant might die, but that's not the landlords problem. It's his property, he can dispose of it as he pleases provided he is not breach of the lease agreement. A persons body is -legally speaking- their property to dispose of as they please. No other person can have a claim on your body unless you have signed some kind of contract obliging you to provide a service to them. Ergo, A woman is free to dispose of her body as she pleases regardless of how many babies it might kill. Fetuses are notoriously lax when it comes to ensuring all the paperwork is in order.

From a philosophical perspective, the situation is a little more complicated. The undeniable truth is that abortion ends the potential for a human life. However, the same thing might be said of jerking off into a sweatsock. If masturbating kills babies, I've slaughtered more children than Ghengis Khan, Stalin, and Hitler combined.

As far as Catholic dogma is concerned, outlawing abortion was simply a tool to ensure the propagation of the church. Lots of Catholics having lots of little Catholic babies means bigger congregations, more regional clout, and a solid population base. Abortion was in fact at one point sanctioned by the Papacy as long as it occured before the 'quickening' of the child ie. before it began moving. That's a second trimester abortion. There are many civilized countries that do not allow second trimester abortions.

Personally, I'm somewhat ambivalent as to what the 'right' thing to do is should a woman become pregnant. I'm a dude, I don't know what it's like, I never will, and I am loathe to stick my nose in what is probably absolutely none of my buisness. I do, however, get a little upset when people start tossing around words like 'murder', 'atrocity', and other such nonsense. Life isn't always easy, and as self-affirming as berating people who you deem to be morally inferior to you can be, it's a fruitless and ugly exercise.

As an aside, according to the Man in the Big Hat, animals do not have souls, spirits, or anything of the sort. Even a cursory reading of Genesis makes this painfully self evident. The fact that you -a 'devout' Catholic- could trip over such a basic piece of scripture leads me to believe that you're probably either just a troll, or a self-important moralizer with a brain span roughly equivalent in diameter to the head of a pin. I remember once meeting a 'devout' Catholic who was convinced that the spirits of the recently departed were capable of crossing over to this world and delivering messages of hope to loved ones. I attempted to explain to her that the Church considers this to be either dementia or consorting with the Malign Powers, but she was adamant. The overly and overtly religious are the only people capable of containing within their heads as many blatant contradictions as a 6 year old child... Maybe I'll start my own show... "Catholics say the darndest things".

It is actually usually due to environmental factors, or genetic ones. Drugs are part of it, but more often are much smaller things, like not eating enough vitamins, and the largest percentage are due to genetic malformations.

(My emphasis)

Exactly. Errors in genetic crossing occurs with a high frequency. Meaning that the system that, according to Christians was created by God, is flawed.

you don't think they would have had some positive influence on your life that no one else could have? what if they helped you stray away from suicide at one point when no one else could have ever done that?
And what if they grew up to be some asshole who rapes your sister six times, kills her and mutilates her body?
Appealing to emotions doesnt go well in a mature discussion of serious topics.

It's not ..at all about when life begins or.. scientifically when the baby becomes human.

When a woman looks at her situation and ponders the option of getting an abortion, she's thinking about the baby; not the foetus.
The life is there. When she ponders it. She knows that it is.


It is a human when it is given regard as a human.


Also.. there is no heaven or hell for animals. Humans have souls. Animals don't. Animals have emotion; they are not going to heaven or hell.


Everything I said might have all ready been addressed because I only read the first and last pages of the thread. but. There's my input.

Comparing it to cancer is rediculous because of this:

Cancer is not/will never be a sentient human.

Even in the "pro choice" view the fetus will "become" a human.

Therefore comparisons to anything else are irrelevant, as nothing else "becomes" a human. The only question left is why isnt it a human, and when exactly it would become one. Anyway, tired (PS I know it is always a human life)

Hope this helps.

Here is a random note though. Which side "Pro-life" or "Pro choice" is the selfless one? (I am already born and gain nothing from being pro-life, whereas pro-choice is different)

When a woman looks at her situation and ponders the option of getting an abortion, she's thinking about the baby; not the foetus.
The life is there. When she ponders it. She knows that it is.
It is a human when it is given regard as a human.

But by that reasoning something that isn't regarded as human would also not have rights. This would make racists and such very happy, but is not desireable I think..
Subjective opinions are not a good basis for a legal system.

[QUOTE=German Kingdoms]Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act. [QUOTE]

Why do I need to? It's perfectly legal and there is no one telling you to have one or not have one.

Even in the "pro choice" view the fetus will "become" a human.

May become. It isn't yet - unless you say it has a soul. And for the foetus personally it makes no difference if it is aborted before it develops the ability to experience things or if it was never conceived (hmmm... feeling like a broken record now).

Aside: what makes a human superior/more worthy of continued existence than animals/plants needed to feed it or cancercells in your opinion ? All of these are alive after all.

Here is a random note though. Which side "Pro-life" or "Pro choice" is the selfless one? (I am already born and gain nothing from being pro-life, whereas pro-choice is different)
Neither is.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.

Show some compassion! Women don't have abortions lightly, whether or not you think it's wrong, the people that receive abortions are not doing it out of malice, but because they have found themselves in a very difficult situation. They don't desrve scorn. Whatever happened to hating sin not sinners!

Comparing it to cancer is rediculous because of this:

Cancer is not/will never be a sentient human.

Even in the "pro choice" view the fetus will "become" a human.

actually, if you went with the average outcome as the definition of what the fertilized egg will become, it will become nothing...the majority of fertilized eggs will be miscarried naturally as a result of the female body's screening process for fetal viability.

also, we don't define what things ARE based on what they will BECOME, no matter how likely that becoming might be. after all, all human life (fetus or otherwise) will be dead some day, with 100% certainty. if embryos should be regarded as human persons because they have a less than 50% chance of some day becoming a human person, then all human people should be regarded as corpses because we are 100% likely to become corpses.

Therefore comparisons to anything else are irrelevant, as nothing else "becomes" a human. The only question left is why isnt it a human, and when exactly it would become one. Anyway, tired (PS I know it is always a human life)

personhood is defined, in born humans, based on our mental functions. you can give somebody a heart transplant and they are still the same person. you can look at identical twins, who have the same DNA, and know they are two different people. somebody can lose their arms or legs or both and still be the individual they are. the only area of the body that cannot be altered without inherently altering the individual is the brain. if we wish to hold fetuses to the same standards of "personhood" which we apply to born humans, it would be logical to use their brain function to do so.


Hope this helps.

not really, no offense. same "arguments" i've heard a million times.


Here is a random note though. Which side "Pro-life" or "Pro choice" is the selfless one? (I am already born and gain nothing from being pro-life, whereas pro-choice is different)
anti-choice persons seek to control the bodies of other individuals based on personal opinion (and often personal religious convictions). pro-choice persons seek to entrust the care of an individual's body to the person who inhabits that body, even if that person might make choices the pro-choice individual does not personally agree with. neither is particularly about "selflessness," per se, but i think one side is clearly more humble. "pro-life" persons seek to gain power over other people's medical decisions, while pro-choice persons seek to leave that power where it belongs...with the individual and their doctor.

Since we have alot of atheist, satanist, and other religion type challenge Christians on God, and Jesus. I'd thought that as a Roman Catholic, a DEVOTED Roman Catholic. I want the Pro-Abortion people to convience me to why I should support such a horrible act.

Here is my stance on Abortion:

I believe that Abortion is murder, you are basically killing a CHILD. I don't believe that its the woman's body, because the woman's body is still there after the abortion. The woman's body only connection to the child is the cord. The child has its own body. I believe that HUMAN rights, the right to live and prosper, is more important than Women's right. Sometimes I wonder how women who have had abortion, can sleep at night. It must be amazing to sleep, knowing you took a life. To say that it isn't alive until its born is bullshit. I was pulled 2 month early because I was drowning in my mother's stomach. If I wasn't living, then how could I be drowning? Finally, I believe that women's who had abortion will face SERIOUS consequences in the afterlife.

You may think that you are getting away with murder, but your not. You may think your safe now, but when you die, your safety blanket is removed, and the truth will hurt you.


You ask people to convince you then go into your tirade about why abortion is bad … I hardly think you were looking for convincing and nothing short of lifetime experiences or a lot of discussion will change your world pov

So were you really looking for a change in a few days in an online forum?

You ask people to convince you then go into your tirade about why abortion is bad … I hardly think you were looking for convincing and nothing short of lifetime experiences or a lot of discussion will change your world pov

i find it obnoxious when people try these "convince me" threads. they never are actually looking for honest discussion, they just want to repeat their own beliefs over and over, and to insult people who disagree. i think it's a dishonest tactic, and one that is unworthy of any person of character. however, i think the threads sometimes (SOMETIMES) attract other individuals who are more reasonable and honest, so the discussions can evolve beyond the arrogant rudeness of the thread founder. so at least there's a silver lining :).

here's a question for the "pro-life" people:

why do you insist on calling fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses "babies"? a baby is a born human infant. if you are going to use the term "baby" to apply to things that may eventually become born human infants, then why not use "toddler"? or "teenager"? if nature takes its course, a baby will become a toddler and a toddler will one day be a teenager, so why choose to refer to fetuses etc as "babies" alone? if their potential eventual status defines what they are NOW, then why stop at the "baby" stage?

furthermore, why do you refer to babies as "babies"? shouldn't you refer to them as "teenagers", since they will (most likely) one day become teenagers? in America, a baby is more likely to become a teenager than a fertilized egg is to become a baby, so where's the disconnect?

It is actually usually due to environmental factors, or genetic ones. Drugs are part of it, but more often are much smaller things, like not eating enough vitamins, and the largest percentage are due to genetic malformations.
Exactly. Errors in genetic crossing occurs with a high frequency. Meaning that the system that, according to Christians was created by God, is flawed.I think most Christians would argue that the flaw are due to "the Fall" or "original sin" or whatever their particular sect callls it. Whether or not that is true would be a debate for an entirely new thread (and probably has been) but it means the flaws are due to mankind. The errors are usually incompatible with life though, so it isn't as if they are random deaths, but more like the fetus wouldn't have survived anyway. Some malformations, for instance, result in a fetus with no brain, or only one eye, or a host of other strange problems. Most of these die well before the classic 40 week time frame.

I think most Christians would argue that the flaw are due to "the Fall" or "original sin" or whatever their particular sect callls it. Whether or not that is true would be a debate for an entirely new thread (and probably has been) but it means the flaws are due to mankind.

so genetic and physiological flaws that occur via processes that no human being can control are somehow due to mankind? between 25% and 40% of fertilized eggs will be aborted by the woman's body before she is even aware she is pregnant, virtually all of them due to defects inherent in the zygote or embryo itself, yet these flaws are somehow the fault of mankind?

interesting theological theory: hold people responsible for events they are unable to influence, and do not hold God responsible even though he is able to influence those events.


The errors are usually incompatible with life though, so it isn't as if they are random deaths, but more like the fetus wouldn't have survived anyway. Some malformations, for instance, result in a fetus with no brain, or only one eye, or a host of other strange problems. Most of these die well before the classic 40 week time frame.
that's the point: recent studies suggest that the majority of successful fertilizations and implantations that occur will never result in a viable fetus. the vast, vast majority of these cases will have nothing to do with the actions of the male or female who provide the gametes and/or the uterine environment, but are simply a natural reality of the human reproductive process. in nature, abortion occurs far more frequently than successful pregnancy and child birth...apparently, God doesn't have a problem with that, because He designed our bodies to function this way.

BOTH those quotes in your post are mine. Please, attribute correctly.

German,

If you consider that a typical woman, in the course of her life, will miscarry three times without knowing it, and that the fetus (however microscopic) is deposited from such an event onto the feminine hygiene product of choice, then you face a serious challenge in believing that life begins at conception.

If you believe that, then you must paw through every trash can and salvage every used sanitary napkin and tampon and have them inspected to see if they contain or carry a miscarried embryo - so that you can then hold a proper funeral for the child.

These are just facts - it's up to you how silly you want to be.

I would say im fairly liberal however i gotta say im pro life, for a number of reasons.

1) Many of the instance in which abortions occur are because of unprotected sex, the problems easy to solve why not do so? either take a pill or get the guy to wear a condom.

2) I'm not scientist but i do know that at the point when most people have an abortion the odds are that the fetus is going to become eventually a human being. So while your not killing a human persay your certainly killing the potential for human life. That's not much better than murder

3) There's hundreds of parents out there who want kids but can't have them. If the mother doesn't want the child its not hard to find a parent out there who will adopt.

Unfortunately for the Adoption argument, many people who can't have children now have the option of fertility treatments. They are less likely to adopt when there is still a chance that they can have a biological child of their own.

Also, those that do end up adopting, often want a white male child, which is only a small percentage of children put up for adoption. Female children and Children of ethnic backgrounds are often labeled as undesirables. PLUS, it's cheaper, and easier to go out of the country to adopt.

Also, (atleast here in the state of Georgia) a woman who wants to put her baby up for adoption must pay for ALL hospital fees. Very few adoption agencies help with this cost. Look at it this way: You're poor, with no health insurance. The man you plan to marry wooed you into hopping in the sack. You get pregnant. He leaves. It's around $500-$1000 for an abortion, versus the many thousands for a hospital stay. Unfortunately, some women don't see it as a ethical choice, they see it as an economical one.

My two cents on the abortion issue: I personally don't believe in it, but I cannot stop another woman from doing it. I do not know the situation she's in. If you don't like abortion, do as I have pledged: Don't have one. Also, support preventative measures, like making birth-control widely available, and teaching comprehensive sex education. Support making the adoption process easier and more affordable for both Adoptive parents AND birth parents.

Outlawing abortion will not reduce abortions, it will just make them underground, and unsafe. I highly suggest reading "The Worst of Times" by Patricia G. Miller, in which she interviews women who had illegal abortions, Doctors who provided them, and the children orphaned by illegal abortions. It's eye opening, and makes you wonder why we would ever go back to that.
I put it this way: Burglary is illegal, but it still happens, doesn't it?