NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious as to why Christians are against abortion.

Seems like if someone is too young to sin, they go straight to heaven. Therefore, aborted fetuses should go to heaven. Which means that all this arguing about saving them is really inhumane as it is asking to not only live a lifetime of suffering on earth, but might even cheat them of the heaven they would have gotten if their parents had gone through with the abortion.

So shouldn't abortion be a good thing?











It's not that I actually believe this. I just pondered it once and thought I'd post it because it would be nice and controversial. Besides, I haven't seen an abortion thread in weeks.

By that logic, murder is also morally acceptable because it likely sends the person to heaven faster.

The majority of Christians are against it because to them life begins at conception and it is supposedly a "gift" from God. There is also something about protecting the unborn child...

However, the problem with your argument is that while ideally the aborted foetus should go to heaven in some sects or denominations of Christianity, one of the pre-requisites for entry passed the pearly gates is to to have been baptised. However, the one common requisite is belief in God, which an unborn foetus cannot do. In fact, many young children cannot do it because they are unable to understand even the most basic element of that belief.

I think I got it right... I've seen the argument written down before.

Abortion is neither good nor bad; of course, that neutral argument depends on whether or not it was forced - ie: removing the power of choice from the woman. It's a choice the woman makes as it is her body. It cannot truly be one or the other because for everyone, it's different.

It's simple. Christians are against abortion because women are wretched people (well, hardly people) who shouldn't be enjoying sex and babies are God's way of punishing women for having orgasms. Which is of course, why some consider it alright to have an abortion only in the case of rape or incest, maybe if the woman's life is in danger too ('cause really, that seductress must have learned her lesson to take enjoyment in sex if she almost died, right?)

Foestuses have original sin, thus they go to hell.

It's simple. Christians are against abortion because women are wretched people (well, hardly people) who shouldn't be enjoying sex and babies are God's way of punishing women for having orgasms. Which is of course, why some consider it alright to have an abortion only in the case of rape or incest, maybe if the woman's life is in danger too ('cause really, that seductress must have learned her lesson to take enjoyment in sex if she almost died, right?)

They're against it because they believe that the child has a soul and killing them would be tantamount to murder. None of the things you mention have anything to do with it.

Because for Christians its hard to differentiate from murder.

Foestuses have original sin, thus they go to hell.

Actually, they used to go to limbo, which isn't quite hell but isn't heaven or purgatory either.

Because the unborn is a human being, and there are only 2 acceptable reasons for killing a human being: self-defense and execution. And if either of those are used incorrectly, there's going to be a bad time come Judgement Day.

Furthermore, the unborn are not innocent. They have inherited a sinful nature from their parents and are just as guilty as those who have been born already. So, we don't know that they will go to heaven.

By that logic, murder is also morally acceptable because it likely sends the person to heaven faster.

Aren't they against murder though because it is forbidden by god?

Not so much that they want the murdered person alive, but the murderer not to sin?





Carrying on as if this is my actual argument...

They'll protect the unborn until they're born as minorities and/or grow old enough to be deployed to Iraq, at which point that emphasis on the sancitity of life miraculously vanishes.

Why did you make a abortion thread!? WHY!?

Aren't they against murder though because it is forbidden by god?

Not so much that they want the murdered person alive, but the murderer not to sin?





Carrying on as if this is my actual argument...

Yes and yes. We want the person alive and we want the potential murderer to not sin.

Why did you make a abortion thread!? WHY!?

It was next up in the cycle.

Ya man , you've really done it now , the pro-life annoying idiot f**ks are going to start swarming in their droves . :sniper:

Actually, they used to go to limbo, which isn't quite hell but isn't heaven or purgatory either.

My understanding of limbo is that it was still technically Hell, but it's where "good" non-believers go. However, since the Catholic Church recently destroyed an entire metaphysical plane of existence with a simple declaration (man, do I wish I had that power), I'd assume that those souls in limbo are now considered in Purgatory? Am I getting this right or even close? I'm neither Catholic nor a close follower of the Vatican's declarations so I'm probably misinterpreting something, I'd wager.

I'm an atheist so all the god crap is stupid to me about abortion.

However, abortion is stupid in itself. Yay lets kill our unborn kids because we were to stupid to use the pill, use a condom, or not have sex at all if you don't have the two.

If all the damn communists are so against human nature and try to force people into sharing stuff with nothing, why are they for abortion? Abortion has been around since forever, and it is pretty gruesome in itself. Now if communists want to change human nature so much to make humanity better, why allow a greusome part?

Abortion is unnecessary today, except in the case of rape and if the life of the mother is in jeopardy directly due to childbirth (no "she might kill herself due to anger and sadness :(" crap to make excuses).

My understanding of limbo is that it was still technically Hell, but it's where "good" non-believers go. However, since the Catholic Church recently destroyed an entire metaphysical plane of existence with a simple declaration (man, do I wish I had that power), I'd assume that those souls in limbo are now considered in Purgatory? Am I getting this right or even close? I'm neither Catholic nor a close follower of the Vatican's declarations so I'm probably misinterpreting something, I'd wager.

Who knows, its up for the clergy to decide more or less.

Some might say "all non-believers go straight to hell, no matter what"
Others might say "good non-believers go to heaven to learn the truth"

Catholic church has always been that way, the clergy make up the rules.

My understanding of limbo is that it was still technically Hell, but it's where "good" non-believers go. However, since the Catholic Church recently destroyed an entire metaphysical plane of existence with a simple declaration (man, do I wish I had that power), I'd assume that those souls in limbo are now considered in Purgatory? Am I getting this right or even close? I'm neither Catholic nor a close follower of the Vatican's declarations so I'm probably misinterpreting something, I'd wager.

That's pretty much it. Technically, the concept of limbo never entered the official dogma of the Magisterium, so it's more of a theory of theology rather than a specific idea. So, the Pope never destroyed it, but simply used a technicality to reinforce its optional status.

Yes, because everyone knows only Ebil Commies (tm) are pro-choice. :rolleyes:


Most of them are.

Never said they were the only pro-choicers.

I'm an atheist so all the god crap is stupid to me about abortion.

However, abortion is stupid in itself. Yay lets kill our unborn kids because we were to stupid to use the pill, use a condom, or not have sex at all if you don't have the two.

If all the damn communists are so against human nature and try to force people into sharing stuff with nothing, why are they for abortion? Abortion has been around since forever, and it is pretty gruesome in itself. Now if communists want to change human nature so much to make humanity better, why allow a greusome part?

Abortion is unnecessary today, except in the case of rape and if the life of the mother is in jeopardy directly due to childbirth (no "she might kill herself due to anger and sadness :(" crap to make excuses).

Yes, because everyone knows only Ebil Commies (tm) are pro-choice. :rolleyes:

Because the unborn is a human being, and there are only 2 acceptable reasons for killing a human being: self-defense and execution. And if either of those are used incorrectly, there's going to be a bad time come Judgement Day.

The woman is defending herself against an unwanted parasite. Self-defense indeed.

And I've never got how people can say they are pro-life for the 'innocent' foetus, but are quite willing to give out the death penalty and support unnecessary wars.

They're against it because they believe that the child has a soul and killing them would be tantamount to murder. None of the things you mention have anything to do with it.

Actually, it's quite on the contrary. You see, the same "Christians" who propose that they're against abortion because they believe that every life is precious and that killing someone is horribly wrong, then turn around and believe in the death penalty.


One can make the argument that a fetus is innocent and a convicted person is not.

But that's really irrelevant in the philosophical discussion about the worth of a human life. You see, the worth, value, or whatever you want to call it, the sanctity of life is independent upon the actions of said life. If you make a hardcore stance about how precious life is, you cannot then come back and claim that while precious it may be, some deserve to die.

It is, quite frankly, illogical and hypocritical.


So no my friend, the "sanctity of life" has really nothing much to do with the trampling of women's rights.

The woman is defending herself against an unwanted parasite. Self-defense indeed.

Not everyone considers that child an "unwanted parasite". Frankly, I think that's a pretty horrid term to use, especially considering it's an incorrect use of the term in the first place and has a really dehumanizing feel akin to "vermin".

EDIT: I may want to state I am generally against abortion but I believe it is up to the law to decide its legality and not my personal moral convictions. That aspect is solely between the mother, her husband/partner, and God(s), whatever their ultimate moral stance on the issue may be.

It is interesting, your viewpoint grants human existence to the fetus. Most pro-abortionist will try to deny the fetus this status. Everything we understand about biology and science, dictates the fetus must be human life, it can not be anything other than human, and if it weren't alive, we wouldn't be talking about killing it.

The question is a moral one. Do we, as mortal humans, have the right to take life? Clearly, in some circumstances, we have made this moral decision acceptable... self-defense, war, artificial life support... so, we do have parameters regarding the acceptance of taking human life.

One argument you will often hear from pro-abortionists is, the "right of the mother to make decisions regarding her body." This argument fails because you could make the same exact argument for pedophiles or cannibals. Your rights end where another human's rights begin, we don't allow people to eat each other, because it violates the "meal's" rights to life. We don't allow pedophiles to engage in their sickness, because another human life is effected. Abortion is the same way, it effects another human life... and YES, it IS a human life.

Ya man , you've really done it now , the pro-life annoying idiot f**ks are going to start swarming in their droves . :sniper:

And exactly what are you contributing with this post? I suggest you get acquainted with the door because if that is how you're going to post, you're not going to have an easy time here.

I'm an atheist so all the god crap is stupid to me about abortion.

However, abortion is stupid in itself. Yay lets kill our unborn kids because we were to stupid to use the pill, use a condom, or not have sex at all if you don't have the two.

If all the damn communists are so against human nature and try to force people into sharing stuff with nothing, why are they for abortion? Abortion has been around since forever, and it is pretty gruesome in itself. Now if communists want to change human nature so much to make humanity better, why allow a greusome part?

Abortion is unnecessary today, except in the case of rape and if the life of the mother is in jeopardy directly due to childbirth (no "she might kill herself due to anger and sadness :(" crap to make excuses).

Oh and what *IF* the condom and/or the birth control pill failed? I'm sure those people had it coming despite being prepared. And if I'm not mistaken, it happened to one of the posters here on NSG. They had used the pill and a condom (at least one of the two) but still got pregnant.

If you know anything about "communists", you'd realise that initially the ones who now force abortion were adamantly pro-life and rewarded people for having large families.

Abortion is sadly a necessary evil in the world today; that and humanity's inclination to do asinine shit.

Whether you view it from the perspective as a form of population control or a way to control one's life, it is something that we need to learn to handle until we as a species develop beyond the point where we need abortion.

We have over 6 billion people and that number is swelling by the day. The earth can sustain a large population but there reaches a point where resources become too widely spread for the population to be successfully sustained.

The once lethal diseases that plagues humanity now have cures and we're able to better fight off the infections that would have once been a death sentence for many of us. By defeating nature, we are disrupting the natural order.

It is one of several ways of helping keep with sustainable development. With the seemingly endless medical advances that have enhanced the humans' ability to live for longer, we have to realise that the births to deaths ratio has to stay at a sustainable level. A extreme case either way is not healthy for any population. The current levels in the developed world are closer to the ideal though we will one day reach a point where the death rate exceeds the sustainable replacement rate.

If you want to take a less detached approach, the woman is a person in her own right and as a person she is able to decide if she wants to bring a child into the world to love and care for. This child would require at least 18 years of her utmost devotion and time. She would have to provide it with not only the basic necessities of life but equip this child with the tools it needs to be a successful person.

The decision to abort the child is not an easy one because psychological studies have shown that the longer the foetus is in the womb, the more the maternal instincts grow for this unborn child. The woman needs to make a choice because if she keeps it, she would need to either provide for it or find it a loving home that can do the same.

Does she want to bring a child into this world unprepared when there are millions of children without a loving home? If she did, this child would be one of millions who have been abandoned by their parents.

The choice to abort is often in the interests of both parties. Yes it is a loss of a potential life but would that child have been happy know they were given up? After all, the child would grow up not knowing why the mother gave it up.

Not all aborted foetuses are aborted for the same reason. Often married women with children abort because they are unable to care for another child without hurting their other children because the household resources would be spread thin.

The world is not a perfect place and until it is, we need necessary evils to keep it ticking.

My understanding of limbo is that it was still technically Hell, but it's where "good" non-believers go. However, since the Catholic Church recently destroyed an entire metaphysical plane of existence with a simple declaration (man, do I wish I had that power), I'd assume that those souls in limbo are now considered in Purgatory? Am I getting this right or even close? I'm neither Catholic nor a close follower of the Vatican's declarations so I'm probably misinterpreting something, I'd wager.

there were 2 kinds of limbo.

1) the limbo that held the righteous dead before the death of jesus. those who had done nothing to deserve torment but because the gates of heaven were not open, there was no where else to go.

and

2) the limbo that held unbaptised babies. it was felt by some church father that the unbaptised could never enter heaven so if you didnt get that baby baptised, the only option was to send it to hell. because the baby had never sinned, it didnt receive eternal torment but, alas, you would never be reunited with your child in heaven.

when the pope declared the nonexistence of limbo he was referring to the second kind. (the first went away when jesus descended into hell to retrieve those who resided there). he has decided to go with the more benevolent theory which holds that an unbaptised baby goes to heaven because of its innocence and that no loving god would deny a baby eternal bliss on a technicality.

purgatory is only for those who lived, sinned and are being purified so that they can enter heaven in a perfect state. that does not include babies.

Because the unborn is a human being, and there are only 2 acceptable reasons for killing a human being: self-defense and execution. And if either of those are used incorrectly, there's going to be a bad time come Judgement Day.

Furthermore, the unborn are not innocent. They have inherited a sinful nature from their parents and are just as guilty as those who have been born already. So, we don't know that they will go to heaven.

This is quite laughable.


It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly impossible the belief in any supreme being is.

And so you would think that the followers of such an impossibly provable religion would be humble in their beliefs, staying to themselves.

But no. Ooooooooh no. They choose to judge other people with their own small minded esoterical beliefs, and have ZERO regard for the beliefs of other people, and yet they're the FIRST people to claim foul when anyone doesn't show regard to their beliefs.

Truly, mind boggling amazing.


No one has the right to claim dominance over someone else when it comes to any particular religious belief, and this subject is no different.

If you don't want to have an abortion because you believe that you will go to a place called hell, then fine, don't have one. But you have NO right to place that same belief on other people who do not believe the way you do.

That's called tyranny, (to put it mildly), and I find it disgusting.

But no. Ooooooooh no. They choose to judge other people with their own small minded esoterical beliefs, and have ZERO regard for the beliefs of other people, and yet they're the FIRST people to claim foul when anyone doesn't show regard to their beliefs.

I have a feeling that the sanctity of life and the moral consequences of what they consider murder are a little too important for them to simply remain silent on. If you believed something was tantamount to state-sanctioned murder, would you stay silent?

Not everyone considers that child an "unwanted parasite". Frankly, I think that's a pretty horrid term to use, especially considering it's an incorrect use of the term in the first place and has a really dehumanizing feel akin to "vermin".

EDIT: I may want to state I am generally against abortion but I believe it is up to the law to decide its legality and not my personal moral convictions.

Perhaps it is the opposite of the appeal to emotion of some pro-life arguments, but I do consider foetus' (this may not be the correct, scientific term, I don't have the knowledge of it) to not have the same rights as a sentient human until it has recognised brain functions and could potentially survive outside the womb.

.... Abortion is the same way, it effects another human life... and YES, it IS a human life.

It depends how you define 'human', whether a certain stage of development has to be reached until human is an appropriate term and rights can be applied from there.

Not everyone considers that child an "unwanted parasite". Frankly, I think that's a pretty horrid term to use, especially considering it's an incorrect use of the term in the first place and has a really dehumanizing feel akin to "vermin".



Wow, such moral high ground from someone who thinks kids go to hell because they have a "sinful" nature and haven't gained the necessary consciousness to believe in a god yet to be able to properly repent of their "sinful" nature.

I have a feeling that the sanctity of life and the moral consequences of what they consider murder are a little too important for them to simply remain silent on. If you believed something was tantamount to state-sanctioned murder, would you stay silent?

If I had nothing to back it up with other than "well my god says", yes, i would keep it to myself.

only awesome people with great genes and a fantastic nurturing environment should be allowed to have children. abortion for everyone else. :)

One World Alliance makes some good points.

Also, if life really starts at conception, why are all laws concerning age relative to time of birth?

One World Alliance makes some good points.

Also, if life really starts at conception, why are all laws concerning age relative to time of birth?

Because evil liberal satanists run the Federal Government.

One argument you will often hear from pro-abortionists is, the "right of the mother to make decisions regarding her body." This argument fails because you could make the same exact argument for pedophiles or cannibals. Your rights end where another human's rights begin, we don't allow people to eat each other, because it violates the "meal's" rights to life. We don't allow pedophiles to engage in their sickness, because another human life is effected. Abortion is the same way, it effects another human life... and YES, it IS a human life.

You know, I always found the "pro abortion" line funny. Who is actually PRO abortion? Who is FOR abortion? I don't mean who is for the right to have an abortion, that's not what pro abortion means.

Pro abortion means someone who is actually in favor of having an abortion. I'd like to know one person who actually promotes people having abortions.

That being said, you are correct, your rights end where another human's rights begin. And even though you are a human, your right to life does not extend past my right to bodily autonomy. You may not take my kidney, or my blood, or my bone marrow unless I allow it. You may not use any single part of my body without my permission, even if it is absolutly crucial for your survival.

If you need blood, and I choose not to give you my blood, you die. Too bad. If you need a kidney and I choose not to give you my kidney, you die. Too bad.

If you need a woman's womb, and she chooses not to let you use her womb, you die. Too bad.

The argument of "it's a human being!" doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't help you. The minute you try to argue that a fetus is a person, then it has the same restrictions that other people do. And no person gets to use any part of my body unless I allow it. No person gets the right to my blood. No person gets the right to my kidney. No person gets the right to a woman's womb.

And if my denying you my blood, if a woman denying you her womb means you die, then you die.

Perhaps it is the opposite of the appeal to emotion of some pro-life arguments, but I do consider foetus' (this may not be the correct, scientific term, I don't have the knowledge of it) to not have the same rights as a sentient human until it has recognised brain functions and could potentially survive outside the womb.

I tend to establish personhood at around the same time, although I don't consider survival outside the womb to be particularly important in and of itself (I was actually slightly premature).

Not everyone considers that child an "unwanted parasite". Frankly, I think that's a pretty horrid term to use, especially considering it's an incorrect use of the term in the first place and has a really dehumanizing feel akin to "vermin".

actually parasite is exactly the right term to use. Under the very definition of the word, a fetus is a parasite, that is exactly what it is.

The woman is defending herself against an unwanted parasite. Self-defense indeed.

And I've never got how people can say they are pro-life for the 'innocent' foetus, but are quite willing to give out the death penalty and support unnecessary wars.

I don't support unnecessary wars and I have never called myself pro-life: I'm anti-abortion.

Wantedness does not determine the value of human life. Otherwise, the Jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded and bed-wetters of Nazi Germany were worthless.

Otherwise, the Jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded and bed-wetters of Nazi Germany were worthless.

The jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded etc were not living inside another person's body, were they?

Failed.

I don't support unnecessary wars and I have never called myself pro-life: I'm anti-abortion.

Wantedness does not determine the value of human life. Otherwise, the Jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded and bed-wetters of Nazi Germany were worthless.

You're either anti-abortion because you're prolife, or just a blabbering idiot who doesn't believe in women's rights

This is quite laughable.


It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly impossible the belief in any supreme being is.

And so you would think that the followers of such an impossibly provable religion would be humble in their beliefs, staying to themselves.

But no. Ooooooooh no. They choose to judge other people with their own small minded esoterical beliefs, and have ZERO regard for the beliefs of other people, and yet they're the FIRST people to claim foul when anyone doesn't show regard to their beliefs.

Truly, mind boggling amazing.


No one has the right to claim dominance over someone else when it comes to any particular religious belief, and this subject is no different.

If you don't want to have an abortion because you believe that you will go to a place called hell, then fine, don't have one. But you have NO right to place that same belief on other people who do not believe the way you do.

That's called tyranny, (to put it mildly), and I find it disgusting.

Who's claiming dominance? I'm stating what I believe to be objectively true. Furthermore, I do not judge: I repeat the judgement given to me and you in Scripture. I neither make nor carry out those judgements. But, I do carry their pronouncement along for the benefit of those who hear.

Tyranny is a disregard for human rights (or, more properly, divinely secured privelages), and no one has the right to kill the unborn, no matter what judges say.

actually parasite is exactly the right term to use. Under the very definition of the word, a fetus is a parasite, that is exactly what it is.

Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.


So yes, it's official, a fetus is a parasite. Period.

not in my opinion

I step on an ant. Murder?

Also, if life really starts at conception, why are all laws concerning age relative to time of birth?
Well, there is the blatantly obvious answer that one can pinpoint the exact day of birth, whereas conception is never more than an educated guess.
I mean, really, that is about the stupidest argument relating to abortion I've ever heard, and I'm counting claims about abortion being a communist conspiracy.

what the hell is wrong with being pro-life. it doesnt matter how young or underdevelpoed a baby is, it still is a living person and therefor it is murder. So therefor aboatoin should be outlawed, if you dont like it and want to cover up your mistake with it then look into finding the baby a mother and father who want a child but cant have one becasue one of them is infertile. duh, so everyone should stop killing babies and shut the fu*k up.

The jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded etc were not living inside another person's body, were they?

Failed.

Actually, I'm sure some were when they were killed: pregnant mothers were not spared.

And the point was that wantedness does not determine personhood.

Might there be other qualifications? There might be, not in my opinion, but there might be. But wantedness in and of itself is no reason.

Who's claiming dominance? I'm stating what I believe to be objectively true. Furthermore, I do not judge: I repeat the judgement given to me and you in Scripture. I neither make nor carry out those judgements. But, I do carry their pronouncement along for the benefit of those who hear.

Tyranny is a disregard for human rights (or, more properly, divinely secured privelages), and no one has the right to kill the unborn, no matter what judges say.

So, for example, if a woman's life was in danger due to complications in pregnancy, you would rather both die than an abortion be carried out?

I'm Christian, and I am all for abortion.

Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.



Actually a more proper definition for parasite in this instance is an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.

An organism that obtains nutriment from a host, but that DOES provide benefit the host is a symbiote.

And there is a difference between anti-abortion and pro-life. If you are pro-life, you must be anti-abortion, but you can be anti-abortion and not prolife.

Please explain.

You're either anti-abortion because you're prolife, or just a blabbering idiot who doesn't believe in women's rights

Women have rights? I dare say they do: they have the right and responsibility to care for their children as best they can.

"Reproductive rights" is nonsense.

And there is a difference between anti-abortion and pro-life. If you are pro-life, you must be anti-abortion, but you can be anti-abortion and not prolife.

Please explain.

You can be anti-life and against freedom for women.

Who's claiming dominance? I'm stating what I believe to be objectively true. Furthermore, I do not judge: I repeat the judgement given to me and you in Scripture. I neither make nor carry out those judgements. But, I do carry their pronouncement along for the benefit of those who hear.

Tyranny is a disregard for human rights (or, more properly, divinely secured privelages), and no one has the right to kill the unborn, no matter what judges say.

You are disgusting.

So i'm gonna make this short and sweet, because it sickens me to even reply to your posts.


First off, yes, you do judge. The bible says nothing about aborting fetuses. NOTHING. So yes, you have to "re-interpret" certain things, stretch and twist the scriptures for them to fit your warped sense of religion.

And the fact that you see yourself as a "vessel" to pronounce idiocy in order to "benefit those who hear" is so blatantly arrogant and foolish of you. You have NOTHING to back up your "pronouncements", especially where scripture is concerned.

And don't even try to use human rights as a means to INFRINGE upon the rights of women to have abortions. The right to self autonomy surpasses the right of a parasite to live (a right that is purely in the hands of the host, IE, the woman).

To claim that women can't have abortions because it's against YOUR god's wishes is disgusting, and is WITHOUT QUESTION your attempt to DOMINATE others with your particular, small minded religious idiocy.

"Reproductive rights" is nonsense.

Really? So a woman can't say no to sex? After all, if there is no such thing as reproductive rights, then a woman has no right to refuse to take part in the reproductive process...

Not that I think you actually believe this crap at this point. More likely you're just another troll. I always find it amusing that whenever an abortion or gay rights thread, some wackjob religious right nutcase or two just MAGICALLY show up at that exact right time.

I'm sure it's god's divine plan that had you show up on NSG just at the right moment to spew your nonsense. Not, I dunno, you're a puppet.

Well, there is the blatantly obvious answer that one can pinpoint the exact day of birth, whereas conception is never more than an educated guess.
I mean, really, that is about the stupidest argument relating to abortion I've ever heard, and I'm counting claims about abortion being a communist conspiracy.

Heh :p it wasn't the most serious of questions.

No, it's not human.

Why the distinction?

But wantedness in and of itself is no reason.

Sure it is. "I don't want this thing living in my body" is plenty reason.

I step on an ant. Murder?

No, it's not human.

Pro-life is against death whatsoever. I'm pro-death penalty and pro-just war, so I can't be pro-life. I can be and am anti-abortion.

So what is your justification for being anti-abortion but not pro-life?

The bottom line is that ever since abortion was legalized in the 70s, the crime rate has gone down.

I don't care that it's in effect, taking away a life. I don't care how nasty those aborted baby pictures look. And I really don't give a rat's ass about what a bunch of bitching Christians have to say about it.

If it makes the crime rate drop without any serious repercussions, then I'm all for it.

Please explain.

Pro-life is against death whatsoever. I'm pro-death penalty and pro-just war, so I can't be pro-life. I can be and am anti-abortion.

Actually a more proper definition for parasite in this instance is an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host.

An organism that obtains nutriment from a host, but that DOES provide benefit the host is a symbiote.

The woman does not benefit from a pregnacy (at least not physically). So there is no symbiotic relationship.

Oh, and by the way, animals or plants are organisms. You did not expand to my definition, you dumbed it down.

Women have rights? I dare say they do: they have the right and responsibility to care for their children as best they can.

"Reproductive rights" is nonsense.

And there is a difference between anti-abortion and pro-life. If you are pro-life, you must be anti-abortion, but you can be anti-abortion and not prolife.

D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G

Why the distinction?

Humans have souls and are created in God's image (they are moral creatures - capable of choosing to do good or evil); ants are neither.

Humans have souls

Granting this for the sake of argument... so what?

(they are moral creatures - capable of choosing to do good or evil)

A fetus is not capable of choosing to do good or evil.

The woman does not benefit from a pregnacy (at least not physically). So there is no symbiotic relationship.

Oh, and by the way, animals or plants are organisms. You did not expand to my definition, you dumbed it down.

Your definition was improper for two reasons. One it did not distinguish between a symbiote and a parasite. I agree with you that a fetus is a parasite, but your definition did not include the fundamental point of difference, that a parasite provides no benefit, and a symbiote does. That is a crucial difference your definition did not include.

Secondly, your definition was:

an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment

The bolded part is of error. A fetus and its host are of the same species. By your definition, which requires parasite and host to be of different species, the fetus could not be a parasite.

Which is why I found fault with your definition.

what the hell is wrong with being pro-life. it doesnt matter how young or underdevelpoed a baby is, it still is a living person and therefor it is murder. So therefor aboatoin should be outlawed, if you dont like it and want to cover up your mistake with it then look into finding the baby a mother and father who want a child but cant have one becasue one of them is infertile. duh, so everyone should stop killing babies and shut the fu*k up.


Huh, that's interesting. So killing something that CANNOT LIVE INDEPENDENTLY from its host is murder? So if a woman has a miscarriage, should she be tried for murder? At the very least, manslaughter, according to what you believe.

Sick.

Humans have souls and are created in God's image

Oh? Prove it.

Humans have souls and are created in God's image (they are moral creatures - capable of choosing to do good or evil); ants are neither.

Thus sayeth Ioryw, God's self-proclaimed prophet here on earth.


So tell me, if someone doesn't believe in your religion, should they still be bound by law in accordance to your religion's morals?

They're against it because they believe that the child has a soul and killing them would be tantamount to murder. None of the things you mention have anything to do with it.
Oh yeah, for sure, which is why Christians never make exceptions for instances of rape.

Okay, God created people. He is sovereign and He can command you to do whatever He desires. To go against His command is to sin.

Your body is not your own. It is His given in trust to you. So, a woman can do whatever she wants so long as it doesn't go against His Law. The only two exceptions given to "Thou shalt not kill" are self-defense and execution. So, abortion falls under "Thou shalt not kill."

That's it in a nutshell.

You all totally misunderstood what I meant by being a messenger. I mean that I only repeat what I see in Scripture. I do not add (and neither do I subtract) and if I do, it is your duty to call me on it and my duty to repent.

I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and therefore is the sole authority on which our doctrines and actions are to be based.

Now, I need to go to two meeting. Hopefully I'll be back around ten, but you're responses will have to wait until then.

He is sovereign and He can command you to do whatever He desires.

Indeed He can.

But why should I pay any attention to His commands?

Oh? Prove it.

And thus you've found the entire fallacy of their entire religion. NONE of it can be proved.

And yet, regardless of such, that's not enough to stop them from monitoring, supervising, and policing others' actions.

Okay, God created people.

Prove it

He is sovereign and He can command you to do whatever He desires.

Prove it

To go against His command is to sin.

Prove it.

Your body is not your own. It is His given in trust to you. So, a woman can do whatever she wants so long as it doesn't go against His Law.

Prove it.

I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and therefore is the sole authority on which our doctrines and actions are to be based.

Prove it.

Now, I need to go to two meeting. Hopefully I'll be back around ten, but you're responses will have to wait until then.

Somehow...I doubt you're going to have an adequate answer to my response.

Okay, God created people. He is sovereign and He can command you to do whatever He desires. To go against His command is to sin.

Your body is not your own. It is His given in trust to you. So, a woman can do whatever she wants so long as it doesn't go against His Law. The only two exceptions given to "Thou shalt not kill" are self-defense and execution. So, abortion falls under "Thou shalt not kill."

That's it in a nutshell.

You all totally misunderstood what I meant by being a messenger. I mean that I only repeat what I see in Scripture. I do not add (and neither do I subtract) and if I do, it is your duty to call me on it and my duty to repent.

I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and therefore is the sole authority on which our doctrines and actions are to be based.

Now, I need to go to two meeting. Hopefully I'll be back around ten, but you're responses will have to wait until then.

Like I said, DISGUSTING.


Oh, and yeah, you are acting like a messenger (self-proclaimed, might I add). Because again you talk about God's commands and such, and yet, there is nothing in the bible about the abortion of a fetus. Nowhere does the bible talk about that.

Soooooooo, I guess God's commands are what you say they are, right?

And I like how all this noble talk of scripture has led to NO QUOTES, NO REFFERENCES. Just, well, your failed childish opinions.


But I digress, it really doesn't matter what your mother god says, because societal laws are/(should) not (be) based upon religion. Thank god............no pun intended.

Not everyone considers that child an "unwanted parasite". Frankly, I think that's a pretty horrid term to use, especially considering it's an incorrect use of the term in the first place and has a really dehumanizing feel akin to "vermin".
Well, I used to have pet mice. That doesn't mean I'm not fine with some people characterizing wild mice as pests. Same principle applied to a different species.

Oi, must this be a religion fight?

Okay, God created people. He is sovereign and He can command you to do whatever He desires. To go against His command is to sin.

Your body is not your own. It is His given in trust to you. So, a woman can do whatever she wants so long as it doesn't go against His Law. The only two exceptions given to "Thou shalt not kill" are self-defense and execution. So, abortion falls under "Thou shalt not kill."

That's it in a nutshell.

You all totally misunderstood what I meant by being a messenger. I mean that I only repeat what I see in Scripture. I do not add (and neither do I subtract) and if I do, it is your duty to call me on it and my duty to repent.

I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and therefore is the sole authority on which our doctrines and actions are to be based.

Now, I need to go to two meeting. Hopefully I'll be back around ten, but you're responses will have to wait until then.

Isn't there some part in the bible that justifies having slaves?

Isn't there some part in the bible that justifies having slaves?

Yes there is.


1 Peter 2:18 says "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (KJV)


Wow, that's the ONLY scripture verse that's been quoted in this thread, despite all these pious "holier than thous" who claim that the bible forbids abortion.

How very interesting.

Oi, must this be a religion fight?

Yes, because an anti-choice position is so entirely irrational that there is no real possible justification other than "god said not to".

Yes, because an anti-choice position is so entirely irrational that there is no real possible justification other than "god said not to".

Wrong.

Morality and intelligence suggests that killing your own kind is stupid. For the most part, Humanity is just that stupid to kill itself.

Yes, because an anti-choice position is so entirely irrational that there is no real possible justification other than "god said not to".

hear hear!

Wrong.

Morality and intelligence suggests that killing your own kind is stupid. For the most part, Humanity is just that stupid to kill itself.

I would argue that in an inclosed enviornment of limited resources and a positive population growth, killing your own kind may in fact be a very smart thing to do.

If you're basing it purely on intellect, reducing the number of mouths the planet has to support is not that bad an idea, we can always make more.

If you're basing it on morality, it's pretty hard to argue that forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy she does not want is somehow more moral then terminating a life that at no point ever became self aware or was ever capable of living on its own.

Neither of which are really any good reasons what so ever.

Fail.

It's simple. Christians are against abortion because women are wretched people (well, hardly people) who shouldn't be enjoying sex and babies are God's way of punishing women for having orgasms. Which is of course, why some consider it alright to have an abortion only in the case of rape or incest, maybe if the woman's life is in danger too ('cause really, that seductress must have learned her lesson to take enjoyment in sex if she almost died, right?)

Be careful with that tar brush you're using there.

Personally, I'm fine with other people being allowed to have abortions. If they ask my opinion, I might very well say I don't think they should, but that's their legal right. Who am I to judge them? Of course, I'm not against people enjoying sex either, so I guess I'm just not a Christian. Except I am.

Okay, God created people. He is sovereign and He can command you to do whatever He desires. To go against His command is to sin.

Well, if there is a god, that's why I wouldn't follow him. I'm not a person with my own desires and choices, I'm just a plaything he can command at every whim. No thanks.

Funny that the christians had all those holy wars if they are so aginst murder, and come to think about it didnt God kill the entire human race apart from Noah and his wife - now that was harsh attempted genocide you could say, quick someone get the UN gods a war criminal! As for people who take the bible literaly, I take it you believe the world was built in severn days if you do please explain to me why the dinosaurs are excluded from these severn days:headbang:

Wrong.

Morality and intelligence suggests that killing your own kind is stupid. For the most part, Humanity is just that stupid to kill itself.

There are a variety of rational and well reasoned arguments that defend the "moral correctness" or, at the very least, the moral neutrality of abortion. "Morality and intelligence" suggest nothing as to either side of this argument.

Morality and intelligence suggests that killing your own kind is stupid. For the most part, Humanity is just that stupid to kill itself.
Actually, preventing the birth of offspring when a woman does not have the resources to provide for it, her other offspring or herself is a good idea.

Be careful with that tar brush you're using there.

Personally, I'm fine with other people being allowed to have abortions. If they ask my opinion, I might very well say I don't think they should, but that's their legal right. Who am I to judge them? Of course, I'm not against people enjoying sex either, so I guess I'm just not a Christian. Except I am.
You're a Christian who isn't against abortion, so you don't fall under the characterization of "Christians are against abortion.." and those who are against abortion are definitely opposed for the reasons I mentioned (though they'll deny it to their last breath).

"Morality and intelligence" suggest nothing as to either side of this argument.

To the contrary, they suggest very strongly that abortion is morally acceptable... because the limited rights it might be reasonable to grant a fetus do not supersede the basic human right to control one's body.

I would argue that in an inclosed enviornment of limited resources and a positive population growth, killing your own kind may in fact be a very smart thing to do.

If you're basing it purely on intellect, reducing the number of mouths the planet has to support is not that bad an idea, we can always make more.

If you're basing it on morality, it's pretty hard to argue that forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy she does not want is somehow more moral then terminating a life that at no point ever became self aware or was ever capable of living on its own.

Neither of which are really any good reasons what so ever.

Fail.

Good thing the world is not a closed environment and that in first world countries where abortion is allowed and done, there is enough resources regardless.

Also, Who says that the fetus could never become self aware has anyone taken the mind of a fetus to see if they can see? If given the time and resources, the fetus will eventually become a born human, which is, just encase you try to make the point that infants can't think, IS self aware and survivable (albeit not on its own).

Life is more important then the pain that a pregnancy can cause.

that in first world countries where abortion is allowed and done

...scarce resources are used at a vastly and dangerously disproportionate rate?

Good thing the world is not a closed environment

Um, do resources come to earth from extra terrestrial sources? No? Then the earth is very much a closed enviornment.


Also, Who says that the fetus could never become self aware has anyone taken the mind of a fetus to see if they can see?

Many people have disected a fetus. Guess what they found, no brain!

If given the time and resources, the fetus will eventually become a born human, which is, just encase you try to make the point that infants can't think, IS self aware and survivable (albeit not on its own).

Yes it will eventually become. Which is quite different than "is". And moreover, even if it were a full human being, that still only gives it the rights that other human beings have, which do not include the right to survive off another human being without their consent.

Life is more important then the pain that a pregnancy can cause.

Who said anything about pain? Our society has already determined that bodily autonomy is far more important than life, otherwise I would be forced to give up my kidney if anyone needed it. Since I am not forced to give up my kidney, why should a woman be forced to give up her womb?

To the contrary, they suggest very strongly that abortion is morally acceptable... because the limited rights it might be reasonable to grant a fetus do not supersede the basic human right to control one's body.

Erm, not really. Like I said, there are well reasoned arguments designating abortion as moral, immoral, an amoral. And all (well, a good number of them) are valid.

Personally, my stance on abortion hinges on what can best be called psychological interactionism...I guess? Dunno. But it boils down to an abortion has no moral value, good or bad, because, until the fetus is able to psychologically interact (that means affect and be deeply, psychologically affected) with the outside world, it is not sentient and thus has no valid, inalienable claim on life. This argument also places the death sentence as an immoral act, I should note. The potential for human life argument doesn't strike me as sound. Perform a thought experiment wherein a full human being can be cloned from from a blood sample. At this point, a bloody tissue wield the "potential for human life" and by that argument it is now morally unacceptable to throw a bloody tissue out after a bloody nose and instead as many clones as possible must be made so as to not waste this "potential."

Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.


So yes, it's official, a fetus is a parasite. Period.

Why can't we think of pregnancy as an STD? :D

And all (well, a good number of them) are valid.

Then how do you decide?

Do you flip a coin?

The potential for human life argument doesn't strike me as sound. Perform a thought experiment wherein a full human being can be cloned from from a blood sample. At this point, a bloody tissue wield the "potential for human life" and by that argument it is now morally unacceptable to throw a bloody tissue out after a bloody nose and instead as many clones as possible must be made so as to not waste this "potential."

One of the biggest "pro-life" (I'll get to why it's quoted later) arguments I've seen is that the fetus is a human life. It is not a human, it is the potential of a human. If abortion is wrong, then throwing away a bloody tissue, even itching yourself is wrong. Since they obviously aren't, there is nothing wrong with aborting an embryo/fetus. Until it becomes its own separate organism that can live and act on its own does it gain the right to its own life that protects it (although it could be said that it doesn't gain the right to its own life until it can reason to take care of itself, in which nearly all minors could be killed without any moral or lawful wrongdoing).

Pro-life is such a funny term to use anyway. Doesn't the woman have the right to her own life? A baby is a huge investment in both time (18 years) and money, not to mention the possibility of problems in birth which could take her life. Plus, as (I believe) Neo Art said earlier, the woman has the right to her own body, which includes being forced to give parts of it away. No one has the right to force her to give a kidney, all the embryo/fetus is doing is forcing her to give her womb and nutrition. To be pro-life IS TO BE pro-choice, choice for the mother to keep the right to her life.

One of the biggest "pro-life" (I'll get to why it's quoted later) arguments I've seen is that the fetus is a human life. It is not a human, it is the potential of a human. If abortion is wrong, then throwing away a bloody tissue, even itching yourself is wrong. Since they obviously aren't, there is nothing wrong with aborting an embryo/fetus. Until it becomes its own separate organism that can live and act on its own does it gain the right to its own life that protects it (although it could be said that it doesn't gain the right to its own life until it can reason to take care of itself, in which nearly all minors could be killed without any moral or lawful wrongdoing).

Pro-life is such a funny term to use anyway. Doesn't the woman have the right to her own life? A baby is a huge investment in both time (18 years) and money, not to mention the possibility of problems in birth which could take her life. Plus, as (I believe) Neo Art said earlier, the woman has the right to her own body, which includes being forced to give parts of it away. No one has the right to force her to give a kidney, all the embryo/fetus is doing is forcing her to give her womb and nutrition. To be pro-life IS TO BE pro-choice, choice for the mother to keep the right to her life.



It's scratching.

You're a Christian who isn't against abortion, so you don't fall under the characterization of "Christians are against abortion.." and those who are against abortion are definitely opposed for the reasons I mentioned (though they'll deny it to their last breath).

Da. On the other hand, the impression your post seemed to convey was that all Christians were anti-abortion. Therefore I was just making sure you didn't happen to be under false impressions.

Furthermore, I'd guess that most Christians who are anti-abortion take that position because they feel that it's roughly equivalent to murder - that it requires killing a human being.

Furthermore, I'd guess that most Christians who are anti-abortion take that position because they feel that it's roughly equivalent to murder - that it requires killing a human being.
Unless we're dealing with rape victims, then it's ok for them to kill their human-being-fetuses.

I also didn't mean to imply that all christians are anti-choice. Some of them are nice, sane, non-judging people in practice as well as their claims.

Actually, they used to go to limbo, which isn't quite hell but isn't heaven or purgatory either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

The woman is defending herself against an unwanted parasite. Self-defense indeed.

And I've never got how people can say they are pro-life for the 'innocent' foetus, but are quite willing to give out the death penalty and support unnecessary wars.

Pffft..

'Defending herself against an unwanted parasite' eh?

First off, it is really hard to contract this 'parasite' if you refrain from having sex. It isn't like you drink a glass of water one day and wake up the next with this 'parasite' inside you, living off the food you intake.(well, so long as this water has no drugs in it) Since sex is generally something voluntary and not a necessary action to keep an individual alive, it isn't self-defense when you abort a fetus. 'Self-defense' would be not getting a fetus in the first place.

Also, fetii are not actually parasites, unless you consider humans to be parasites. In which case, calling a fetus a parasite is the same as saying it is a human.

In most cases, fetii are innocent. Actually, when was the last time a fetus committed a crime? Hmm? Even if one had committed some form of murder, it would be considered innocent by law, since as far as I know, fetii have limited cognitive function.

Having the death penalty for fully grown, thinking people, who have had plenty of life experience and generally know that actions have consequences is far removed from pulling a human in the early stages of growth, out of a womb and killing it in the process.

As for 'unnecessary wars', well, I think we can both agree that they are unnecessary.

Actually, preventing the birth of offspring when a woman does not have the resources to provide for it, her other offspring or herself is a good idea.

Hardly any abortions are done for that reason.

Just like how many abortions are done for rape and to save the mothers life, probably 1% of all abortions are done for those reasons only.

I also didn't mean to imply that all christians are anti-choice. Some of them are nice, sane, non-judging people in practice as well as their claims.

It's called Protestantism. You know, with the exception of white Baptists.

Hardly any abortions are done for that reason.

Just like how many abortions are done for rape and to save the mothers life, probably 1% of all abortions are done for those reasons only.

do you have any sources of those numbers or are you just making them up?

do you have any sources of those numbers or are you just making them up?

I'll look it up now.

Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_us

Its a cited article and fact so don't go "WIKIPEDIA IS FALSE".

21.3% Cannot afford a baby

Seems considerably higher than it was made out to be....

do you have any sources of those numbers or are you just making them up?

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[6] Another study, in 1998, revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[7]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

From Wikipedia.

He might have his own/other sources though.

there is no real possible justification other than "god said not to".

The funny part being that God didn't.

Seems considerably higher than it was made out to be....

NOTE: I said Rape and to save the mothers life.

Both some of the lowest stats on the board.

NOTE: I said Rape and to save the mothers life.

Actually, preventing the birth of offspring when a woman does not have the resources to provide for it, her other offspring or herself is a good idea.Hardly any abortions are done for that reason.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Thats not what I gave the stat for.

Since when has killing cells been illegal?

I'll look it up now.

Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_us

Its a cited article and fact so don't go "WIKIPEDIA IS FALSE".

It also states that about 1/5th of all abortions are for financial reasons, so you can't really say that "Hardly any abortions are done for that reason."

Foestuses have original sin, thus they go to hell.

Incorrect. Most Christian theologies hold that a person not given the opportunity of baptism cannot be held accountable for original sin.

--------------

It is generally understood by all people that a Foetus of a certain age should not be abourted as it is alive. The Christian argument states that the life of the Foetus begins at conception. It's really not that complicated to understand. Whether you agree with this premise or not is another matter.

For those of you with a philosophical background you will realise it is a well structured argument

P.1 A foetus is alive at conception.
P.2 A foetus concieved from sex between two humans is a human.
C.1 A human foetus is a living human.
P.3 Killing a human is murder.
P.4 Abortion involves killing a human foetus.
C.2 Killing a human foetus is murder. Q.E.D.

P.3 Killing a human is murder.

Generally, yes.

But the opponent of abortion must argue that this is solely because of the humanity of the person killed... or because of some other trait that adult humans and fetuses share.

I don't think that most of the reasons we oppose killing live humans apply to fetuses, even if fetuses technically are live humans.

It is generally understood by all people that a Foetus of a certain age should not be abourted as it is alive.

If you are even going to have this conversation you should ensure you have the terminology right.

An abortion does not terminate a fetus. An abortion terminates a pregnancy. An abortion aborts the pregnancy.

Now if your statement is that it is generally understood by all people that a pregnancy at a certain state should not be aborted, then no, that's quite incorrect.

Hardly any abortions are done for that reason.
Hardly any abortions are done because a woman can't afford to have a kid? Hardly any abortions are done because a woman already has kids that she can barely provide for? Have you looked at any statistics?

Just like how many abortions are done for rape and to save the mothers life, probably 1% of all abortions are done for those reasons only.
It's more than 1% for rape alone...

edit: I'm happy that someone posted stats so I can be lazy and not look for them. :)

snip


It's more than 1% for rape alone...

I've already posted the stats that prove that its 1% for rape and incest.

If you are even going to have this conversation you should ensure you have the terminology right.

An abortion does not terminate a fetus. An abortion terminates a pregnancy. An abortion aborts the pregnancy.

Now if your statement is that it is generally understood by all people that a pregnancy at a certain state should not be aborted, then no, that's quite incorrect.

I think anyone could make the connection of the way he was using abortion.

I've already posted the stats that prove that its 1% for rape and incest.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm

Fine, and 6% for medical reasons, whatever. You're still generally wrong. Especially when you consider the fact that you said that hardly any women have abortions because they can't provide for a new offspring, not that hardly any women have abortions because of medical reasons or rape.

Generally, yes.

But the opponent of abortion must argue that this is solely because of the humanity of the person killed... or because of some other trait that adult humans and fetuses share.

I don't think that most of the reasons we oppose killing live humans apply to fetuses, even if fetuses technically are live humans.

The two reasons are usually these:

1) We cannot determine that the fetus has committed, willed, is committing, or is willing a crime which is deserving of execution; therefore we may not kill it.

3) The fetus is not serving the military of a nation against which we are at war, nor is it involved in some occupation which directly supplies the war. Therefore, we cannot kill it.

The two reasons are usually these:

1) We cannot determine that the fetus has committed, willed, is committing, or is willing a crime which is deserving of execution; therefore we may not kill it.

3) The fetus is not serving the military of a nation against which we are at war, nor is it involved in some occupation which directly supplies the war. Therefore, we cannot kill it.

the fetus IS however using the body of another individual without that individual's consent, and, as NO person, none what so ever, has the right to use another's body without that person's consent, said use may be terminated at will by that person.

Just as you have no rights to my kidney, a fetus has no rights to a woman's womb, unless she allows it.

1) We cannot determine that the fetus has committed, willed, is committing, or is willing a crime which is deserving of execution; therefore we may not kill it.

3) The fetus is not serving the military of a nation against which we are at war, nor is it involved in some occupation which directly supplies the war. Therefore, we cannot kill it.

Both of those make exemptions in special cases for beings that are already afforded the right to life.

The question is whether the fetus has the status of a being with a right to life equivalent to an "ordinary" human's in the first place.

Since I am not forced to give up my kidney, why should a woman be forced to give up her womb?

That analogy sucks. Try a new one.

Perform a thought experiment wherein a full human being can be cloned from from a blood sample. At this point, a bloody tissue wield the "potential for human life" and by that argument it is now morally unacceptable to throw a bloody tissue out after a bloody nose and instead as many clones as possible must be made so as to not waste this "potential."

Perform the thought process..put the blood in a petri dish and give it nourishment. Will it automatically grow into a human? I thought not.

Your analogy sucks even more as you can't give out examples of comparison on something that can't even be done.

Perform the thought process..put the blood in a petri dish and give it nourishment. Will it automatically grow into a human? I thought not.
Put an embryo in a petri dish and give it nourishment, will it automatically grow into a human?

She gave up those rights when she knew the risks of having sex. Even with condoms and birth control, theres still a chance.


Ahhh, and here it is. The final desperate argument of the unsupportable position. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy". Bullshit.

There is a risk that whenever I get into a car I will get into an accident. Should I be denied medical treatment because I consented to the risk?

the fetus IS however using the body of another individual without that individual's consent, and, as NO person, none what so ever, has the right to use another's body without that person's consent, said use may be terminated at will by that person.

Just as you have no rights to my kidney, a fetus has no rights to a woman's womb, unless she allows it.

She gave up those rights when she knew the risks of having sex. Even with condoms and birth control, theres still a chance.

Granted she didn't give up those rights if she were raped, thus why abortion for that reason should be allowed.

They're against it because they believe that the child has a soul and killing them would be tantamount to murder. None of the things you mention have anything to do with it.

How do you explain a big chunk of anti-choicers also arguing against contraceptives, condoms, and other birth control items while arguing for women focused abstinence classes?

She gave up those rights when she knew the risks of having sex. Even with condoms and birth control, theres still a chance.

Granted she didn't give up those rights if she were raped, thus why abortion for that reason should be allowed.
And here we go!

The dirty little slut should be punished with a kid because she enjoyed sex! The base of the argument.

Put an embryo in a petri dish and give it nourishment, will it automatically grow into a human?

Complete nourishment (oxygen food waste removeal etc)?

Then yes if its moved to bigger 'tanks' or whatever that can successfully imitate a women's womb.

Complete nourishment (oxygen food waste removeal etc)?

Then yes if its moved to bigger 'tanks' or whatever that can successfully imitate a women's womb.
Oh, we're involving tanks for the embryos now while the poor little blood cells only get a petri dish?!

Given enough coaxing you probably could make a person from some blood cells, if you're going to claim that an embryo can survive on its own outside a woman's body given a vat to grow in then you must also allow the blood cells some cloning technology to grow.

Both of those make exemptions in special cases for beings that are already afforded the right to life.

The question is whether the fetus has the status of a being with a right to life equivalent to an "ordinary" human's in the first place.

Well, if you admit that Dyelli's syllogism is sound, then we have already established that a fetus is fully human; is it is fully human, why should it not be protected by the same rights that everyone else has? If you consider it to be unsound, then we need to have a deeper argument about why we can only kill humans under certain circumstances.

the fetus IS however using the body of another individual without that individual's consent, and, as NO person, none what so ever, has the right to use another's body without that person's consent, said use may be terminated at will by that person.

I disagree. We have a moral obligation to help other people that goes above protecting our bodies, especially if the other person is in mortal danger. As long as giving the other person part of our body does not kill us outright, we must help them. Indeed, it is considered heroic virtue to give of one's own body even if it will result in one's death, according to the principle of double effect. (http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56)

Put an embryo in a petri dish and give it nourishment, will it automatically grow into a human?

In this case..the womb is the petri dish and the nourishment is being supplied.

So..yes.

Find another example of how you could put blood in some sort of protective enclosure and feed it nourishment and have it automatically turn into a human.

Not without alot of manipulation (if it were even possible).

I disagree. We have a moral obligation to help other people that goes above protecting our bodies, especially if the other person is in mortal danger.

Really? Have you turned your house into a homeless shelter? Do you run a soup kitchen for the hungry? Do you provide clothing, food and shelter to those without when the weather is life threatening? Do you? I bet you don't.

And if you don't, that makes you a hypocrite arguing with this stance.

is it is fully human, why should it not be protected by the same rights that everyone else has?

Because those rights aren't based on "humanity." They're based on other things (mental qualities like sentience, sapience, etc.) that tend to correspond with humanity.

Just as a matter of clarification, is it possible for blood cells to be manipulated into producing a clone of the original being? My first instinct is to say that there is not really enough genetic material to do that, but I'm not a biologist.

buh? A blood cell contains the entirety of the dna of the individual. Every cell in your body contains complete genetic code

Just as a matter of clarification, is it possible for blood cells to be manipulated into producing a clone of the original being? My first instinct is to say that there is not really enough genetic material to do that, but I'm not a biologist.
Hell, if we have the technology to grow embroys in vats I'm sure we could.

Oh, we're involving tanks for the embryos now while the poor little blood cells only get a petri dish?!

Given enough coaxing you probably could make a person from some blood cells, if you're going to claim that an embryo can survive on its own outside a woman's body given a vat to grow in then you must also allow the blood cells some cloning technology to grow.

Just as a matter of clarification, is it possible for blood cells to be manipulated into producing a clone of the original being? My first instinct is to say that there is not really enough genetic material to do that, but I'm not a biologist.

Ya man , you've really done it now , the pro-life annoying idiot f**ks are going to start swarming in their droves . :sniper:

So are the sniper smiley one post puppets.

Really? Have you turned your house into a homeless shelter? Do you run a soup kitchen for the hungry? Do you provide clothing, food and shelter to those without when the weather is life threatening? Do you? I bet you don't.

And if you don't, that makes you a hypocrite arguing with this stance.

1) I do not have a homeless shelter in my home, but I do financially contribute to and contribute my labor to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other corporal works of mercy. And if there were a tornado, hurricane, or other natural disaster raging outside my house, and event which has yet to occur where I live, I would allow people to weather in my basement until it had passed.

2) Even if the above were not true, and I never had helped another soul in my life, that would not invalidate my argument.

1) I do not have a homeless shelter in my home, but I do financially contribute to and contribute my labor to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other corporal works of mercy. And if there were a tornado, hurricane, or other natural disaster raging outside my house, and event which has yet to occur where I live, I would allow people to weather in my basement until it had passed.

2) Even if the above were not true, and I never had helped another soul in my life, that would not invalidate my argument.
Do you still have both kidneys and lungs? If so, why haven't you donated them? The waiting lists are enormous and someone could surely die without your help.

Oh yeah, for sure, which is why Christians never make exceptions for instances of rape.

I love how you're speaking for me with such authority, when my views of abortion are easily searched.

"Christians think this and Christians think that."

Guess what? Not all of them.

So are the sniper smiley one post puppets.
I quite agree.


:sniper:

Hell, if we have the technology to grow embroys in vats I'm sure we could.

Yeah, but then we'd be "Playing God"

buh? A blood cell contains the entirety of the dna of the individual. Every cell in your body contains complete genetic code

I have used the wrong terminology; I am aware that every cell in out body contains our complete genetic code, but there must be something else in the egg and sperm that allows a new being to be formed. Otherwise, why, when animals have been cloned, have scientists gone through laborious processes involving the the reproductive materials of the animal? It seems like if every thing is present in other cells, they would serve just as well or better. Not trying to support a pro life argument here, I am just an curious about the biology.

buh? A blood cell contains the entirety of the dna of the individual. Every cell in your body contains complete genetic code

With the exception of gametes. *nod*

1) I do not have a homeless shelter in my home, but I do financially contribute to and contribute my labor to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other corporal works of mercy. And if there were a tornado, hurricane, or other natural disaster raging outside my house, and event which has yet to occur where I live, I would allow people to weather in my basement until it had passed.

2) Even if the above were not true, and I never had helped another soul in my life, that would not invalidate my argument.

No. What invalidates your argument is believing that a person MUST, on moral imperative, allow another being to sustain themselves by living off that person's body. Not at all comparable to charitable donations.

Do you still have both kidneys and lungs? If so, why haven't you donated them? The waiting lists are enormous and someone could surely die without your help.

You've caught me, I'm not perfect. As I said above, that does not invalidate my argument.

I love how you're speaking for me with such authority, when my views of abortion are easily searched.

"Christians think this and Christians think that."

Guess what? Not all of them.
Blah. I only mean the anti-choice ones, calm down.

Besides, I already caught someone using this argument in this very thread. linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13023635&postcount=131)

You've caught me, I'm not perfect. As I said above, that does not invalidate my argument.
Except that you said it's morally imperative for people to sacrifice themselves to help others, this would include organ donation just as much as it would include carrying a pregnancy to term.

Except that you said it's morally imperative for people to sacrifice themselves to help others, this would include organ donation just as much as it would include carrying a pregnancy to term.

Which means it's a moral imperative for him to donate his organs.

Do you obey all your moral imperatives?

I have used the wrong terminology; I am aware that every cell in out body contains our complete genetic code, but there must be something else in the egg and sperm that allows a new being to be formed. Otherwise, why, when animals have been cloned, have scientists gone through laborious processes involving the the reproductive materials of the animal. It seems like if every thing is present in other cells, they would serve just as well or better.

The point of the sperm and the egg is so that there can be genetic variety. Bacteria simply divide themselves up, and have the same genetic material as their parents did, unless there is some sort of mutation. A sperm cell and egg each have half of chromosomes of a regular cell, this gives the created cell some traits of both parents. This creates greater diversity in genes, and allows us to change faster.

As for the difficulty in cloning, humans have specialized cells which all serve a certain purpose. Sex cells have the purpose of reproduction, so taking a random cell out of a creatures body and making it turn into a living being doesn't work, because that cell isn't made to become an independent unit.

Which means it's a moral imperative for him to donate his organs.

Do you obey all your moral imperatives?
I don't really know that I have any moral imperatives...

I mean, I don't kill people, I don't steal from people, I don't eat meat, but if my life depended on me doing any of those I probably would.

You're a Christian who isn't against abortion, so you don't fall under the characterization of "Christians are against abortion.." and those who are against abortion are definitely opposed for the reasons I mentioned (though they'll deny it to their last breath).

So you're omniscient? You can tell what people really think and feel despite what they say?

I don't really know that I have any moral imperatives...

Do you think you're morally obligated to do anything you don't do?

So you're omniscient? You can tell what people really think and feel despite what they say?
Umm... I've picked apart these arguments until they finally get to that point... then they usually quit the conversation or start repeating themselves to avoid admitting this even though it's the only thing left for them to admit to...

Do you think you're morally obligated to do anything you don't do?
No? If I thought I was morally obligated to do it, then I would do it.

She gave up those rights when she knew the risks of having sex. Even with condoms and birth control, theres still a chance.

Granted she didn't give up those rights if she were raped, thus why abortion for that reason should be allowed.

Ah. And smokers gave up their rights to medical treatment if they contract cancer?

And people give up their rights to medical treatment for heart disease if they are overweight?

And people give up their rights to medical treatment if they contract AIDs?

Then why should a woman give up her right to medical treatment if she becomes pregnant?

Perhaps it is the opposite of the appeal to emotion of some pro-life arguments, but I do consider foetus' (this may not be the correct, scientific term, I don't have the knowledge of it) to not have the same rights as a sentient human until it has recognised brain functions and could potentially survive outside the womb.

It depends how you define 'human', whether a certain stage of development has to be reached until human is an appropriate term and rights can be applied from there.

No, I am sorry, it doesn't depend on how you define 'human', science defines human life already. It depends on whether you choose to ignore science or not. An unborn fetus is a human life, it can be nothing other than human, and it is living. Now, many people choose to ignore science and call a fetus something other than what it is, but that doesn't make it so. It only allows you to appease your conscience and continue killing innocent human life.

1. If it is not Human, what species is it?
2. If it's human and not alive, why do we have to terminate it?
3. If it's human life, why are we debating killing it?

The very fact that the author of this thread attributes humanity to the fetus, speaks volumes. You know as well as the pro-lifer's, the fetus is most certainly a human life. You're just okay with killing humans you don't think are worthy of living. Let's be honest about that.

Ah. And smokers gave up their rights to medical treatment if they contract cancer?

And people give up their rights to medical treatment for heart disease if they are overweight?

And people give up their rights to medical treatment if they contract AIDs?

Then why should a woman give up her right to medical treatment if she becomes pregnant?
I'm going to guess a response along the lines of "but this is different because sex is immoral outside of marriage when one doesn't want a child"

I can't honestly say where I am in terms of abortion...


In my catholic days I was violently against it. Now I have left Christianity all together. As a libertarian, I believe human beings should be entitled to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Now here's my issue. Is the fetus an "other"? I guess I don't know.

Even though I am not religious, I still believe all human life is valid, and only under extreme circumstances can it be taken away. To be honest, very few abortions are caused because of a rape. When a woman is raped, the acid levels in her body rise, making it a hostile enviroment for sperm.

On the other hand, I struggle with the woman's right to choose. As women are people, they should have right to choose how to live their lives just as anyone else does.

On a final note, I suggest you find a copy of the film A Silent Scream. The film is from a real life ultrasound of an abortion. I have to be honest, it is the most disturbing thing I have seen in my life. Without being too graphic, the fetus struggles to escape death as the forceps move in to eliminate it. Again it is horrifying to watch, and it makes me wonder a lot about the abortion issue.

Except that you said it's morally imperative for people to sacrifice themselves to help others, this would include organ donation just as much as it would include carrying a pregnancy to term.

Organ donation is a bit trickier. As you said, there are long waiting lists. This means that people can survive without there being an immediate supply of organ donation. If you can avoid giving up your organs, you should. But if there were someone who was going to die soon without a donation, and I received a call from the hospital saying that I was someone qualified to give an organ to that person, I would feel obligated to do so.

Actually I thank you for pointing this out. I should probably contact a hospital and see if there is some sort of "emergency donor" list that I can be put on.

Organ donation is a bit trickier. As you said, there are long waiting lists. This means that people can survive without there being an immediate supply of organ donation. If you can avoid giving up your organs, you should. But if there were someone who was going to die soon without a donation, and I received a call from the hospital saying that I was someone qualified to give an organ to that person, I would feel obligated to do so.
Good for you. I wouldn't. It's not everyone's moral imperative, just yours. I also don't feel morally obliged to donate my body if a condom breaks.

Actually I thank you for pointing this out. I should probably contact a hospital and see if there is some sort of "emergency donor" list that I can be put on.
Why do I think the odds of you actually doing this are unlikely at best apart from me being a bit of a cynical misanthrope?

If I thought I was morally obligated to do it, then I would do it.

I find that very hard to believe... unless your standards for "moral obligation" are so loose as to make the term meaningless.

Except that you said it's morally imperative for people to sacrifice themselves to help others, this would include organ donation just as much as it would include carrying a pregnancy to term.


A ridiculous sraw man. Pregnancy is a consequence of one's actions, someone needing a kidney, isn't. Carrying a pregnancy to term, is a moral obligation because it is the consequence of actions.

:sniper:bit of a touchy subject eh? murder(or rather not murdering) made the top ten. on the other hand is it not free will that god has given us? personally i disapprove of abortion, but i do believe that you can't dictate morality.

The very fact that the author of this thread attributes humanity to the fetus, speaks volumes. You know as well as the pro-lifer's, the fetus is most certainly a human life. You're just okay with killing humans you don't think are worthy of living. Let's be honest about that.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but the white text says that this isn't actually my position.

I had just been thinking one day, an argument popped into my head to counter the people who DO give the fetus humanity.

I find that very hard to believe... unless your standards for "moral obligation" are so loose as to make the term meaningless.
Ok... well, if one of my sisters needed a kidney and I was a match (not likely, we have a different blood type) then I might feel obligated to give her one of mine. I might also just do it because I like her and want to keep her around.

I guess one could say that I feel morally obligated to avoid eating meat if I can eat healthy without doing so, so I have a vegetarian diet.

I felt morally obligated to donate money to Amnesty International when they asked for some, so I did.

What sorts of examples do you want?

A ridiculous sraw man. Pregnancy is a consequence of one's actions, someone needing a kidney, isn't. Carrying a pregnancy to term, is a moral obligation because it is the consequence of actions.
You make some food that you didn't know had a certain poison/allergen in it and feed it to your friend. Your friend begins to suffer kidney failure as a result of consuming your food. Are you now obliged to donate a kidney to your friend?

Also, once again, this comes down to the "the skank deserves to be punished with a kid because she enjoyed getting it on" argument.

abortion is wrong because life begins at conception, abortion is killing and wrong because its taking away life, life is a gift and should be cherished. babies will go to heaven without baptism if the parents intended for them to go be baptized. the same goes for aborted babies.

if you call yourself a Christian, and support abortion, you obviously chose the wrong religion

In response to Soheran (maybe? your post was a bit far back and I'm trying to address multiple ones in this response), I said the arguments for and against abortion are often valid. That doesn't necessitate soundness and I often have trouble with their premises.

As to the criticisms of my thought experiment...you have to realize that it is a thought experiment. They are meant to push an argument to a reasonable extreme and see if they break, if they do then there is something wrong with the argument. I don't see how my thought experiment isn't a reasonable extreme. A fetus in a petri dish will not simply magically become a newborn infant without a good deal of medical assistance that is as existent as the medical assistant to clone a human from a blood sample. Just because one grows in a woman's womb and the other grows in a petri dish doesn't mean that the object itself wields the ability to attain its "final form." The fetus making use of the woman's womb is as reasonable as a blood sample making use of biotechnologies to achieve person-hood.

Now, on to the Good Samaritan Laws...from a legal point of view you cannot obligate someone to commit morally "good" actions. Unless you support legislation that requires all citizens to donate kidneys, liver pieces, etc. then your reasoning is inconsistent by saying that a woman is morally obligated, and thus legally obligated, to donate her womb and food stuffs to the fetus. You can say that it is a morally "good" thing to do so and that not doing so is, at worst, a morally null state. It has no good or bad value. There's a variety of reasons Good Samaritan Laws are simply unfeasible. If you believe they are, in fact, feasible, then I ask that you invite the next homeless person that you see during a cold winter night into your house, because they very well may freeze to death! If they were to die then the moral value of allowing them to die would be transfered upon you, by your argument.

Sorry, but the white text says that this isn't actually my position.

I had just been thinking one day, an argument popped into my head to counter the people who DO give the fetus humanity.

It's okay, moral cowards often run from their positions. You are not pro-life, you are pro-choice, so you do indeed advocate taking humans lives when they are deemed unworthy of living.

For the record, people don't 'give the fetus' a scientific trait, it either IS or ISN'T something, according to biology and science. My books says it is human life, and unless someone knows a scientific explanation to the contrary, that is precisely what a fetus is, and will always be, and it doesn't matter what "people" say it is.

You knew the risk, and you took it.

However with a car, you still knew the risk, but if you took the precautions like wearing a seatbelt and following the laws, you deserve medical care. Those who disregard it are stupid and would be better if they don't recieve it. Yeah I know, "YOU'RE CRUEL!" but hey, your fault for not wearing a seatbelt.
So when birth control fails a woman should be allowed to get an abortion? Good that you agree.


Now as to why you think someone who isn't responsable enough to use contraception is responsable enough to have a kid... yeah, why is this exactly?

Ahhh, and here it is. The final desperate argument of the unsupportable position. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy". Bullshit.

There is a risk that whenever I get into a car I will get into an accident. Should I be denied medical treatment because I consented to the risk?

You knew the risk, and you took it.

However with a car, you still knew the risk, but if you took the precautions like wearing a seatbelt and following the laws, you deserve medical care. Those who disregard it are stupid and would be better if they don't recieve it. Yeah I know, "YOU'RE CRUEL!" but hey, your fault for not wearing a seatbelt.

You knew the risk, and you took it.

However with a car, you still knew the risk, but if you took the precautions like wearing a seatbelt and following the laws, you deserve medical care. Those who disregard it are stupid and would be better if they don't recieve it. Yeah I know, "YOU'RE CRUEL!" but hey, your fault for not wearing a seatbelt.

And if, say, the condoms and contraceptives didn't work, and you still got pregnant, is it then ok, by your logic, to get an abortion?

Edit: Damnit, didn't realize Dak beat me to it. :(

I said the arguments for and against abortion are often valid. That doesn't necessitate soundness and I often have trouble with their premises.

I know what "validity" means.

But in the context of your earlier statement:

"Morality and intelligence" suggest nothing as to either side of this argument.

I assumed your point was broader than "they follow logically from their premises."

If you want, I'll rephrase the question. If morality and intelligence suggest nothing as to either side of this argument, how do you decide?

You make some food that you didn't know had a certain poison/allergen in it and feed it to your friend. Your friend begins to suffer kidney failure as a result of consuming your food. Are you now obliged to donate a kidney to your friend?

Also, once again, this comes down to the "the skank deserves to be punished with a kid because she enjoyed getting it on" argument.


It makes you feel better about killing innocent life, to categorize my position as one of punishment for the "skank". My position is based on personal responsibility, not punishment.

Another straw man in your food example... "YOU DIDN'T KNOW" ...Tell me? When's the last time you knew of someone having sex and not KNOWING how you become pregnant?

Good for you. I wouldn't. It's not everyone's moral imperative, just yours.

You here reveal the futility of most of the threads on the NS forum. The fact of the matter is, people here have widely differing ethics because we have widely differing metaphysics. The abortion question won't be answered here because it is far too high on the list of debatable topics. Without answering and establishing a consensus on the question "What is being?" people are just going to be talking past one another.

You make some food that you didn't know had a certain poison/allergen in it and feed it to your friend. Your friend begins to suffer kidney failure as a result of consuming your food. Are you now obliged to donate a kidney to your friend? ...Also, once again, this comes down to the "the skank deserves to be punished with a kid because she enjoyed getting it on" argument.

Another straw man in your food example... "YOU DIDN'T KNOW" ...Tell me? When's the last time you knew of someone having sex and not KNOWING how you become pregnant?

It makes you feel better about killing innocent life, to categorize my position as one of punishment for the "skank". My position is based on personal responsibility, not punishment.

The fact of the matter is, people here have widely differing ethics because we have widely differing metaphysics.

This is interesting.

Can you justify that statement?

And if, say, the condoms and contraceptives didn't work, and you still got pregnant, is it then ok, by your logic, to get an abortion?

Edit: Damnit, didn't realize Dak beat me to it. :(


If you put up a fence, and someone still walks across your lawn, is it okay for you to then shoot them?

You here reveal the futility of most of the threads on the NS forum. The fact of the matter is, people here have widely differing ethics because we have widely differing metaphysics. The abortion question won't be answered here because it is far too high on the list of debatable topics. Without answering and establishing a consensus on the question "What is being?" people are just going to be talking past one another.

Well, as far as a legalistic approach goes, yours, or anyone else's, metaphysics really have no place. Legislation should really remain within the world we can see and touch with science. I'm not denying your right to condemn women who have abortions, just denying you the right to deny them the right. ;)

I assumed your point was broader than "they follow logically from their premises."

If you want, I'll rephrase the question. If morality and intelligence suggest nothing as to either side of this argument, how do you decide?Oh, I was just trying to combat the notion that any supporter of the pro-life arguments is somehow "less intelligent" than pro-choicers. When it comes down to it, I think the arguments in support of the pro-choice side are much more sound than the pro-life, for reasons I've already stated. :)

A fetus in a petri dish will not simply magically become a newborn infant

No, and a newborn infant will not simply magically become an adolescent teen with pimples, and an adolescent teen will not simply magically become a senior citizen. Yet, all ot these have one common scientific trait, they are all human life at different stages of development. What was your point again?

I know what "validity" means.

But in the context of your earlier statement:



I assumed your point was broader than "they follow logically from their premises."

If you want, I'll rephrase the question. If morality and intelligence suggest nothing as to either side of this argument, how do you decide?

What is your definition for human then? For most Christians and opponents of abortion (that I have encountered), the definition is a "rational animal." Rational, the specific difference, is generally defined as the ability to know a universal. Because of this, a fetus is fully capable of knowing a universal as soon as it is conceived, even if it lacks the necessary tools to come to a universal due to the lack of the development of its body (which we use to gather the sense data that leads to a universal). I guess what I'm trying to say here is that human and sentience/rationality/whatever cannot be separated. If you want to call something a human, you have to call it rational as well.

And if, say, the condoms and contraceptives didn't work, and you still got pregnant, is it then ok, by your logic, to get an abortion?

Edit: Damnit, didn't realize Dak beat me to it. :(
Hell, due to timewarping I got the answer before he even asked the question, I'm that fast. And psychic. wOoOoOO *wiggles fingers*

If you put up a fence, and someone still walks across your lawn, is it okay for you to then shoot them?
If I put a lock on my door and someone breaks in and tries to live in my basement, I can kick them out.

It's okay, moral cowards often run from their positions. You are not pro-life, you are pro-choice, so you do indeed advocate taking humans lives when they are deemed unworthy of living.

For the record, people don't 'give the fetus' a scientific trait, it either IS or ISN'T something, according to biology and science. My books says it is human life, and unless someone knows a scientific explanation to the contrary, that is precisely what a fetus is, and will always be, and it doesn't matter what "people" say it is.

I don't believe I've actually stated my real position anywhere yet, though you are right in that I am pro-choice. Was the moral coward line adressed to me, by the way?

I don't personally think abortions are generally the way to go. I think that ALL should be VERY seriously considered that it is for the good of all parties concerned (even the potential child). And I think that as the fetus develops more restrictions should be put in place, concerning reasons behind the abortion and etc.

I'm not hopping onto any moral high horse, but I rather like my views.


More generally, I do like the bumper sticker that says "How can you trust me with a child if you can't trust me with a choice?"

What is your definition for human then? For most Christians and opponents of abortion (that I have encountered), the definition is a "rational animal." Rational, the specific difference, is generally defined as the ability to know a universal. Because of this, a fetus is fully capable of knowing a universal as soon as it is conceived, even if it lacks the necessary tools to come to a universal due to the lack of the development of its body (which we use to gather the sense data that leads to a universal). I guess what I'm trying to say here is that human and sentience/rationality/whatever cannot be separated. If you want to call something a human, you have to call it rational as well.

Huh? A newborn baby is about as "rational" as a cat. I don't know where you live, but where I am, even though we have tons of stray cats, we tend to not let our newborn infants roam around the streets to be picked up by men with large nets, however hilarious of an image that might be. Anyway, dolphins, pigs, chimpanzees, dogs, etc. can all be taught, by man or nature, "universals"...in fact, it seems most animals possess this capacity.

I guess I simply don't see where you're going with this argument?

abortion is wrong because life begins at conception, abortion is killing and wrong because its taking away life, life is a gift and should be cherished. babies will go to heaven without baptism if the parents intended for them to go be baptized. the same goes for aborted babies.

if you call yourself a Christian, and support abortion, you obviously chose the wrong religion

For the sake of argument, show where, in the Bible, it discusses abortion.
And if you call yourself Christian and are this judgmental, you obviously chose the wrong religion.

Matt. 7:1

What is your definition for human then? For most Christians and opponents of abortion (that I have encountered), the definition is a "rational animal."

I was assuming you were referring to a member of the species homo sapiens.

"Person" is closer if what you mean is "rational animal."

a fetus is fully capable of knowing a universal as soon as it is conceived

A zygote isn't capable of knowing anything.

Clearly you must be using a notion of "capability" that is unfamiliar to me.

You here reveal the futility of most of the threads on the NS forum.
I think the fact that my first post on this thread revealed the most popular anti-choice argument is what revealed the futility of this thread. As did the other posts by other people who pointed out that anti-choice people can't defend their positions without relying on morals and often the Bible.
However, I did point out the weakness of relying on a call to morality to dictate anyone's behaviour.

The fact of the matter is, people here have widely differing ethics because we have widely differing metaphysics. The abortion question won't be answered here because it is far too high on the list of debatable topics. Without answering and establishing a consensus on the question "What is being?" people are just going to be talking past one another.
Duh. I don't think most people here debate because they think they're going to convince anyone of anything.

This is interesting.

Can you justify that statement?

We can't agree on what to do about reality unless we agree about what reality is.

Well, as far as a legalistic approach goes, yours, or anyone else's, metaphysics really have no place. Legislation should really remain within the world we can see and touch with science. I'm not denying your right to condemn women who have abortions, just denying you the right to deny them the right.

A legal code presupposes a metaphysics. For example, here you presuppose a (possibly) materialistic metaphysics and certainly a radical empiricist epistemology.

No, and a newborn infant will not simply magically become an adolescent teen with pimples, and an adolescent teen will not simply magically become a senior citizen. Yet, all ot these have one common scientific trait, they are all human life at different stages of development. What was your point again?
My point is that nobody is obliged to donate their body (in whole or in part) in service of allowing another human being (or animal if you want to go that route) to progress through these various stages of life. If you want to start pulling embryos out of women and growing them in vats and giving them up for adoption on behalf of these women, go right ahead.

We can't agree on what to do about reality unless we agree about what reality is.

Generally there is more than enough common ground to discuss ethical questions.

Where, specifically, do you find that different metaphysics interfere with ethical discussion of the abortion debate... or other common ethical debates on NSG?

Oh, I was just trying to combat the notion that any supporter of the pro-life arguments is somehow "less intelligent" than pro-choicers.

Not necessarily so, no.

I don't believe I've actually stated my real position anywhere yet, though you are right in that I am pro-choice. Was the moral coward line adressed to me, by the way?

I don't personally think abortions are generally the way to go. I think that ALL should be VERY seriously considered that it is for the good of all parties concerned (even the potential child). And I think that as the fetus develops more restrictions should be put in place, concerning reasons behind the abortion and etc.

I'm not hopping onto any moral high horse, but I rather like my views.


More generally, I do like the bumper sticker that says "How can you trust me with a child if you can't trust me with a choice?"

The fact that you like your pro-choice position, is proof you are a moral coward. You admit a fetus is human life, as science already tells us, but you have adopted this "get along" principle to keep pro-abortionists from calling you names and labeling you, and you have justified it in the name of being "moderate". Rather than have the guts to stand up for what you know is right, you had rather take the cowardly way out, and reel off some platitude statement about how "bad and wrong" abortions are... but you aren't willing to do a thing to stop them.

Ever thought about running for office?

We can't agree on what to do about reality unless we agree about what reality is.



A legal code presupposes a metaphysics. For example, here you presuppose a (possibly) materialistic metaphysics and certainly a radical empiricist epistemology.

Yes it does, but that's all a legal system really can presuppose in the society in which we live. This is due to the fact that it is only the "material" that we can be certain of, without very much doubt. Until someone finds god's cellphone number, our society holds to materialist standards. This is all assuming we're talking about secular countries, that is.

Monads, Cartesian Substances and academic philosophical nonsense aside, we're pretty much stuck in a materialistic metaphysics as far as a secular society's laws go, and for good reason.

D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G

You are a horrible debater.

"LA-LA-LA, YOU'RE DUMB! LA-LA-LA!" while sticking your fingers in your ears is not debate. It is downright, complete stupidity. So, learn better debating skills, and then come back.

But, down to the arguement.
Personnally, (and I may be misinformed about this), fetuses become babies at 24 weeks, when their brains become fully developed, and they begin to think, and therefore (under my definition) become human.

Before that, it's like cutting off an arm.

After that, it's murder.

Huh? A newborn baby is about as "rational" as a cat. I don't know where you live, but where I am, even though we have tons of stray cats, we tend to not let our newborn infants roam around the streets to be picked up by men with large nets, however hilarious of an image that might be. Anyway, dolphins, pigs, chimpanzees, dogs, etc. can all be taught, by man or nature, "universals"...in fact, it seems most animals possess this capacity.

I guess I simply don't see where you're going with this argument?

I was simply saying that Soheran divides rationality from humanity, and most pro-life people do not; in fact, they consider it to be what separates animals from humans. The syllogism above is sound to pro-lifers because of our definition of a human, if he does not accept this definition, then he would consider the syllogism to be unsound. All I'm saying is that everything rests on definitions of terms.

As to your comments on rationality, animals are not rational. They have the estimative sense which allows them to judge whether something is useful, but that is a far cry from knowing the immaterial essence of a thing. They respond to training because presenting them with an object or forcing them to perform and action, which can be retained in the memory (a power that is material) is associated with pleasure or pain.

I'm curious as to why Christians are against abortion.

Seems like if someone is too young to sin, they go straight to heaven. Therefore, aborted fetuses should go to heaven. Which means that all this arguing about saving them is really inhumane as it is asking to not only live a lifetime of suffering on earth, but might even cheat them of the heaven they would have gotten if their parents had gone through with the abortion.

So shouldn't abortion be a good thing?

It's not that I actually believe this. I just pondered it once and thought I'd post it because it would be nice and controversial. Besides, I haven't seen an abortion thread in weeks.


It's not about sin, a unborn baby is born perfect with out sin. Abortion goes against the Plan of Christ, to be sent here for a mortal life and to learn to come unto him, and to be challanged and tested. It's the plan we all chose, it's robbing the child of that choice. Besides Earth isn't all about suffering. Life is full of ups and downs. Triumphs and tradgedies alike.

The fact that you like your pro-choice position, is proof you are a moral coward. You admit a fetus is human life, as science already tells us, but you have adopted this "get along" principle to keep pro-abortionists from calling you names and labeling you, and you have justified it in the name of being "moderate". Rather than have the guts to stand up for what you know is right, you had rather take the cowardly way out, and reel off some platitude statement about how "bad and wrong" abortions are... but you aren't willing to do a thing to stop them.

Ever thought about running for office?

I actually didn't adopt my position to keep from being attacked and labeled. Otherwise I might take more offense at you attacking and labeling me. However, I will let this pass and simply respond to your post.

I admit that a fetus will become a human life. When it is simply a group of cells with no cognitive reasoning, I support abortion for any reason. However, it is a gruesome process and wouldn't recommend it. Normal birth control is far better.

As the fetus develops more, the potential parent will need to think about whether or not they can care for the child. Provide it with the love and support (emotional, physical, and monetary) that people should have growing up. If not, the parent may want to consider terminating the pregnancy. What is the point of saving this potential life if you can't give it a proper one?
This should still be done before the second trimester when the heart and brain activities begin kicking in and it begins to develop it's mind and conscience.


After that point in the second trimester, I do consider abortion under all but the most dire conditions (death to the mother and/or fetus) to be wrong.

I find it funny that most people who are against abortion are pro-gun ownership, pro-Iraq war, pro-death penalty, and so on.. and just to think some actually justify killing abortionist to 'save life' haha.

My point is that nobody is obliged to donate their body (in whole or in part) in service of allowing another human being (or animal if you want to go that route) to progress through these various stages of life. If you want to start pulling embryos out of women and growing them in vats and giving them up for adoption on behalf of these women, go right ahead.

Let me ask you a few quick questions... If you are playing ball, and you knock out someone's window, are you obligated to pay for it to be fixed? You were just having fun, you didn't intend on breaking the window... it was a consequence of you playing ball. If you are backing your car out of the parking lot, and you scrape the car beside you, are you obligated to pay the owner for the damage you caused? You didn't intend to hit his car, you thought you were being careful, but this was a consequence of your own actions. If you answer "yes" to these, then why would it be any different obligation for a person to accept the personal responsibility for having sexual relations?

I am all for women having a choice, but the way I see it, they had a choice when they chose to have sex. I'm not in favor of UNLIMITED choice, no one has that right. We could take the very arguments made by pro-abortionists, and pass a law that any parent can kill their child, if they don't like the consequences of deciding to have them... maybe they cry too much? maybe you can't afford a baby-sitter? maybe you just have better things to do than raise a kid? Why is it illegal to kill your kids? They are no different than the fetus in a petri dish, just at a different stage of development.

Yes it does, but that's all a legal system really can presuppose in the society in which we live. This is due to the fact that it is only the "material" that we can be certain of, without very much doubt. Until someone finds god's cellphone number, our society holds to materialist standards. This is all assuming we're talking about secular countries, that is.

Monads, Cartesian Substances and academic philosophical nonsense aside, we're pretty much stuck in a materialistic metaphysics as far as a secular society's laws go, and for good reason.

I don not think that a secular country requires a materialistic metaphysics and subsequent legal code. Neither Aristotle nor Plato were materialists, but they both lived in a society with which they disagreed with the prevailing theology (or what there was of it; ancient pagans were not particularly theological people). A secular society simply means that laws should not be based on a specific revelation (ie. it would be hypocritical for a secular government to mandate some specific aspect of revealed Christianity, for example requiring that people believe that Jesus Christ is God).

I disagree with you that materialism is some sort of settled and victorious philosophy, it is still very much a matter of debate. If it were, Thomists, Kantians, and others who incorporate the existence of immaterial realities would not be considered eminent philosophers, but potentially dangerous crackpots. Instead, many of them are highly regarded (Alasdair MacIntyre comes to mind). This is part of what I was saying before, we cannot have an argument about abortion (which belongs in the realm of ethics) that will produce fruitful results until there is a broad consensus on metaphysics, where currently a consensus is lacking, both in the academy and in society in general.

And with that I must prepare for bed. Happy debating, all.

You are a horrible debater.

"LA-LA-LA, YOU'RE DUMB! LA-LA-LA!" while sticking your fingers in your ears is not debate. It is downright, complete stupidity. So, learn better debating skills, and then come back.

But, down to the arguement.
Personnally, (and I may be misinformed about this), fetuses become babies at 24 weeks, when their brains become fully developed, and they begin to think, and therefore (under my definition) become human.

Before that, it's like cutting off an arm.

After that, it's murder.

Again, this is incorrect science. Nothing is added at 24 weeks to make it something other than what it already is, human life.

If you put up a fence, and someone still walks across your lawn, is it okay for you to then shoot them?

it is in my state.

it is in my state.
Haha. Analogy pwned.

Though I'm now afraid of your state.

human life.

The issue is not whether it is "human life."

The issue is whether the fetus has a right to life that ought to be prioritized over the autonomy of the pregnant woman.

Merely being a living entity that belongs to homo sapiens is completely irrelevant to that question.

I actually didn't adopt my position to keep from being attacked and labeled. Otherwise I might take more offense at you attacking and labeling me. However, I will let this pass and simply respond to your post.

I admit that a fetus will become a human life. When it is simply a group of cells with no cognitive reasoning, I support abortion for any reason. However, it is a gruesome process and wouldn't recommend it. Normal birth control is far better.

As the fetus develops more, the potential parent will need to think about whether or not they can care for the child. Provide it with the love and support (emotional, physical, and monetary) that people should have growing up. If not, the parent may want to consider terminating the pregnancy. What is the point of saving this potential life if you can't give it a proper one?
This should still be done before the second trimester when the heart and brain activities begin kicking in and it begins to develop it's mind and conscience.


After that point in the second trimester, I do consider abortion under all but the most dire conditions (death to the mother and/or fetus) to be wrong.


No, a fetus IS a human life. Until you can scientifically prove otherwise, this fact can't be avoided. Sorry, but science doesn't lie. You can claim it is something else, but I can also claim that the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't make it factual.

The fetus does not "become" life, it is alive from point of conception, and as I argued earlier, if it isn't human life, what life form is it?

The issue is not whether it is "human life."

The issue is whether the fetus has a right to life that ought to be prioritized over the autonomy of the pregnant woman.

Merely being a living entity that belongs to homo sapiens is completely irrelevant to that question.

According to the US Constitution, you are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. I agree, abortion is an issue of moral acceptance of taking innocent human life. Let's at least be honest to that point, then we can have a reasoned debate on when it is morally acceptable to take a human life. I have no problem with establishing boundaries based on this premise, but this is not the premise we are presented, as pro-abortionists will continue to ignore science and reality, and classify the fetus as sub-human, when it's simply not.

According to the US Constitution, you are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. I agree, abortion is an issue of moral acceptance of taking innocent human life. Let's at least be honest to that point, then we can have a reasoned debate on when it is morally acceptable to take a human life. I have no problem with establishing boundaries based on this premise, but this is not the premise we are presented, as pro-abortionists will continue to ignore science and reality, and classify the fetus as sub-human, when it's simply not.

Except that it doesn't matter. Because no born human being has the right, even under the US Constitution, to take someone else's kidneys for their own, or to use another person as life support.

Haha. Analogy pwned.

Though I'm now afraid of your state.

No, analogy is still relevant. I have yet to see ANY law that it is acceptable or legal to kill someone if they merely trespass on your property. I know that some states have adopted protection laws, and you can shoot and kill an intruder you feel is a threat to your life, but that is a far cry from someone simply walking across your lawn.

No, a fetus IS a human life. Until you can scientifically prove otherwise, this fact can't be avoided. Sorry, but science doesn't lie. You can claim it is something else, but I can also claim that the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't make it factual.

The fetus does not "become" life, it is alive from point of conception, and as I argued earlier, if it isn't human life, what life form is it?

That's a good point, actually.

Doesn't change my views, however, due to the fact that before the points mentioned, the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is a human, lacks conscience and rationality, which come with the brain activity.

So I suppose you and I are now on the same thing you and Soheran are arguing.

Edit: Actually, Soheran is now taking on the version that Neo Art was using, which is another argument I agree with.

No, analogy is still relevant. I have yet to see ANY law that it is acceptable or legal to kill someone if they merely trespass on your property. I know that some states have adopted protection laws, and you can shoot and kill an intruder you feel is a threat to your life, but that is a far cry from someone simply walking across your lawn.

If a diabetic breaks into your home, desperately seeking sugar...or something, you can have them forcefully removed. Your property does not suddenly become theirs simply because you may or may not need a piece of their property to survive. That is the argument that I think is being applied to the abortion scenario in this case.

Except that it doesn't matter. Because no born human being has the right, even under the US Constitution, to take someone else's kidneys for their own, or to use another person as life support.

Newborn infants depend on other humans for life support every day. The organ donor argument is a red hering anyway, we are not debating that.

If a diabetic breaks into your home, desperately seeking sugar...or something, you can have them forcefully removed. Your property does not suddenly become theirs simply because you may or may not need a piece of their property to survive. That is the argument that I think is being applied to the abortion scenario in this case.

That would be the argument if fetuses just randomly selected which womb to incubate in! You do realize how the fetus got there, correct?

Who cares if it's a human life? If it's in my body, and I want it out of me, out it goes.

I don't care if it's even sentient life. It could have a little microphone and everything so you could talk to it. I would strongly suggest using that time to explain to the fetus that it is in my body and I get the final say. It's still my body.

You don't get to debate about what I do to my body. You don't get a vote. All you get to is help me do what I want with my body, or get out of my way.

No, analogy is still relevant. I have yet to see ANY law that it is acceptable or legal to kill someone if they merely trespass on your property. I know that some states have adopted protection laws, and you can shoot and kill an intruder you feel is a threat to your life, but that is a far cry from someone simply walking across your lawn.
I'm going to trust Smunkeeville over you on this one.

Newborn infants depend on other humans for life support every day. The organ donor argument is a red hering anyway, we are not debating that.

Apparently the concept of analogy escapes you.

That would be the argument if fetuses just randomly selected which womb to incubate in! You do realize how the fetus got there, correct?
If you invited the diabetic person over earlier in the week and gave them fruit juice they still can't break into your house assuming that they can get sugar from you.

I agree, abortion is an issue of moral acceptance of taking innocent human life.

In the same sense that whether or not I can step on an ant is an issue of "moral acceptance of taking innocent insect life", yes.

I don not think that a secular country requires a materialistic metaphysics and subsequent legal code. Neither Aristotle nor Plato were materialists, but they both lived in a society with which they disagreed with the prevailing theology (or what there was of it; ancient pagans were not particularly theological people). A secular society simply means that laws should not be based on a specific revelation (ie. it would be hypocritical for a secular government to mandate some specific aspect of revealed Christianity, for example requiring that people believe that Jesus Christ is God).

I disagree with you that materialism is some sort of settled and victorious philosophy, it is still very much a matter of debate. If it were, Thomists, Kantians, and others who incorporate the existence of immaterial realities would not be considered eminent philosophers, but potentially dangerous crackpots. Instead, many of them are highly regarded (Alasdair MacIntyre comes to mind). This is part of what I was saying before, we cannot have an argument about abortion (which belongs in the realm of ethics) that will produce fruitful results until there is a broad consensus on metaphysics, where currently a consensus is lacking, both in the academy and in society in general.

And with that I must prepare for bed. Happy debating, all.

Hrmm...alright, I'll give you that there is still a massive debate over the material/immaterial in metaphysics (among a myriad other things). And I'll not get very into it, as while I enjoy the study of ethics, I detest metaphysics and contend that the two are easily separable fields of study (I know that I'm showing a materialist bias here, so be it).

However, secular governments generally function upon the same premises that for it to be applicable in law it must be an observable reality, the type which science can examine, measure and create conclusions about. Any metaphysical properties of something are generally left outside the law. The examples of Plato and Aristotle really don't hold well as, when it came down to it, they very much argued from a divine metaphysic. Well, at least Plato, I'd really have to brush up on my Aristotle seeing as I've only read excerpts here and there and nothing as a whole.

Who cares if it's a human life? If it's in my body, and I want it out of me, out it goes.

I don't care if it's even sentient life. It could have a little microphone and everything so you could talk to it. I would strongly suggest using that time to explain to the fetus that it is in my body and I get the final say. It's still my body.

You don't get to debate about what I do to my body. You don't get a vote. All you get to is help me do what I want with my body, or get out of my way.


"Who cares if it's human life?" Thanks for being genuinely honest, and not trying to continue to hide behind the false arguments to the contrary. At least you are on record with your true feelings now.

Yes, the fetus is in your body, through no fault of its own, and no choice it made to be there. No other instance in our society, is a human life acceptably terminated because of no fault of their own. I have a better idea, why don't we round up all you women who think you have this immoral "right" and shoot you in the head? It seems we would have a lot better argument for doing this, than you have for killing innocent humans.

In the same sense that whether or not I can step on an ant is an issue of "moral acceptance of taking innocent insect life", yes.

No, an ant is not a human life.

Parasite- One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return



Thus, a human in it's early stages of life, is a parasite. If you think abortion should be banned, then you support parasites. It's that simple.

You make some food that you didn't know had a certain poison/allergen in it and feed it to your friend. Your friend begins to suffer kidney failure as a result of consuming your food. Are you now obliged to donate a kidney to your friend?

Also, once again, this comes down to the "the skank deserves to be punished with a kid because she enjoyed getting it on" argument.
Dixieanna, you still haven't addressed this question I asked a couple of pages ago.

"Who cares if it's human life?" Thanks for being genuinely honest, and not trying to continue to hide behind the false arguments to the contrary. At least you are on record with your true feelings now.

Yes, the fetus is in your body, through no fault of its own, and no choice it made to be there. No other instance in our society, is a human life acceptably terminated because of no fault of their own. I have a better idea, why don't we round up all you women who think you have this immoral "right" and shoot you in the head? It seems we would have a lot better argument for doing this, than you have for killing innocent humans.

No, many might still argue that it isn't a human life in the sense about which we're debating. It is a living human fetus, which is different than a living human being. Again, some living blood cells in a petri dish are, biologically speaking, "a human life." They are alive, and completely unique unto the human animal, but we do not call that "human life."

Yes, the fetus is in your body, through no fault of its own, and no choice it made to be there. No other instance in our society, is a human life acceptably terminated because of no fault of their own. I have a better idea, why don't we round up all you women who think you have this immoral "right" and shoot you in the head? It seems we would have a lot better argument for doing this, than you have for killing innocent humans.
Except that women are human beings, despite what people like you wish to argue, while fetuses and embryos are not. Thank you and have a nice day.

No, an ant is not a human life.

"...innocent insect life..."

The point is that "innocent", "human", or "insect" don't prove anything about the moral status of the entity.

If you invited the diabetic person over earlier in the week and gave them fruit juice they still can't break into your house assuming that they can get sugar from you.

What does this have to do with abortion of a living human being? No one has ever argued that a diabetic has such a right, it has nothing to do with a fetus in the womb of a woman it didn't choose to be in!

There is no such thing as an innocent insect.

Shh... you'll spoil everything.

"...innocent insect life..."

The point is that "innocent", "human", or "insect" don't prove anything about the moral status of the entity.

The "morality" of the issue, is that the fetus is HUMAN, not that it is LIVING!

"...innocent insect life..."

The point is that "innocent", "human", or "insect" don't prove anything about the moral status of the entity.

There is no such thing as an innocent insect. Hell, the little buggers wear their skeletons on the outside, that's just freaking odd.

What does this have to do with abortion of a living human being? No one has ever argued that a diabetic has such a right, it has nothing to do with a fetus in the womb of a woman it didn't choose to be in!
That's the point, nobody would argue that the diabetic even has the right to steal someone's apple juice if they're about to slip into a diabetic coma, yet you're arguing that women should have to put up with embryos camping out in their uteruses without their consent.

And an embryo or fetus isn't a human being, it's a potential human being.

The "morality" of the issue, is that the fetus is HUMAN, not that it is LIVING!
So you discrimiante on the basis of species? Is it alright to kick puppies in your morality? I mean, you're advocating shooting women in the head earlier, why not kick some small puppies down flights of stairs while you're at it.

is that the fetus is HUMAN

So? What does that demonstrate about its moral status?

Human beings do not deserve rights simply because they are human.

Ok, well, if the woman is seeking an abortion, she didn't choose for the embryo to be there either.

And once again, an embryo is a potential human being, not an actual one.

No, an embryo of a human being is human life, and no one has given any scientific explanation to the contrary. It is ACTUAL human life, not imaginary, not fake, not pretend, it is real human life, and this can't be avoided. Sorry!

A woman seeking an abortion became pregnant somehow, correct? Now, if you can demonstrate how this came about through no choice of her own... like aliens came down and implanted the fetus inside her... or the fetus just broke into the womb and started living there... then I am listening, otherwise, I have to conclude it got there because of some action taken by the woman.

I find it funny that most people who are against abortion are pro-gun....

Um, Owning a gun isn't the same as being anti-life. Big difference. It's possible to own a gun without ever even using it for target practice, let alone shooting a living being.

Again, this is incorrect science. Nothing is added at 24 weeks to make it something other than what it already is, human life.

Ah. Thank you. But, the time of when the brain is fully develops and begins to think as a human being, it's whenever the brain of the fetus develops, and the fetus becomes a human with full rights.

Parasite- One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return



Well..I got a GREAT sex drive when I was pregnant! That was useful!:p

No, an embryo of a human being is human life, and no one has given any scientific explanation to the contrary. It is ACTUAL human life, not imaginary, not fake, not pretend, it is real human life, and this can't be avoided. Sorry!
No, an embryo is not a human life. It does not preform all the functions necessary for it to be considered an individual life on its own. Furthermore, if you'll notice, I thought up a better response, please respond to that one.

A woman seeking an abortion became pregnant somehow, correct? Now, if you can demonstrate how this came about through no choice of her own... like aliens came down and implanted the fetus inside her... or the fetus just broke into the womb and started living there... then I am listening, otherwise, I have to conclude it got there because of some action taken by the woman.
What if she was raped?
What if she tried to prevent getting pregnant using various methods of contraception that all failed?
And how is any of this different than someone who goes skiing and breaks their leg being denied medical treatment for their broken leg?

So you discrimiante on the basis of species? Is it alright to kick puppies in your morality? I mean, you're advocating shooting women in the head earlier, why not kick some small puppies down flights of stairs while you're at it.


Again, you are grasping at red herrings and straw men to avoid facing the moral issue at hand. Typical of moral cowards. The reason abortion IS a moral issue, is because it involves HUMAN life, nothing more. Granted, there are other "moral" issues regarding puppies, but they appeal to our sense of morality toward living things in general, and are not as paramount as morality regarding HUMAN life. Still... if we performed, routinely on dogs, the proceedure known as "partial birth", PETA would be protesting daily, and you same moral cowards would be demanding the hideous practice be stopped!

Well..I got a GREAT sex drive when I was pregnant! That was useful!:p

Well I'm sure having a parasite in you isn't the only way to accomplish that...

No, an embryo is not a human life. It does not preform all the functions necessary for it to be considered an individual life on its own. Furthermore, if you'll notice, I thought up a better response, please respond to that one.

I'm sorry, but from a biological standpoint, there is no test of functionality to determine species of life. A fetus is a human life, it can't be anything else. Now, is it "fully developed" or "partially developed" or "under developed"? These things can certainly be debated, but what it IS, can't be debated. Science and biology have already established, it is living, it is human, therefore, it is human life.

For the record, you and I are not yet "fully developed" human beings.

Well I'm sure having a parasite in you isn't the only way to accomplish that...

So?

Ah. And smokers gave up their rights to medical treatment if they contract cancer?

And people give up their rights to medical treatment for heart disease if they are overweight?

And people give up their rights to medical treatment if they contract AIDs?

Then why should a woman give up her right to medical treatment if she becomes pregnant?


Yes to smoking, its a conscience decision that all of us have to pay for if they don't have health insurance.

Being overweight is often caused by a reason they can't control, so no.

And no, No one knows if their partner has AIDS. (unless he checked or whatever, and if he did and she knew, then why should we care if she decided to have sex with him anyway?)

medical treatment =/= abortion.

Haha. Analogy pwned.

Though I'm now afraid of your state.

and you should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_My_Day_law

What if she was raped?
What if she tried to prevent getting pregnant using various methods of contraception that all failed?
And how is any of this different than someone who goes skiing and breaks their leg being denied medical treatment for their broken leg?


Well, okay... let' take the rape example first. This is an arguable case... should we allow abortion in case of rape? I'll side with the pro-choicers there, because it was not the choice of the woman to engage in a practice she knew caused pregnancy. Birth control is not 100%, and anyone who uses it, should know that and be prepared for the consequences.

The 'broken leg' red herring is not relevant, but again, nice diversionary tactic!

Again, you are grasping at red herrings and straw men to avoid facing the moral issue at hand. Typical of moral cowards. The reason abortion IS a moral issue, is because it involves HUMAN life, nothing more.
Not really, people get just as pissed off at the seal hunt. It's just when something's cute that culling it is considered a bad idea.

Granted, there are other "moral" issues regarding puppies, but they appeal to our sense of morality toward living things in general, and are not as paramount as morality regarding HUMAN life. Still... if we performed, routinely on dogs, the proceedure known as "partial birth", PETA would be protesting daily, and you same moral cowards would be demanding the hideous practice be stopped!
If we routinely preformed partial birth abortions on bitches that would otherwise die giving birth to a litter of puppies, then PETA would be hugging vets for saving the lives of bitches everywhere.

I'm sorry, but from a biological standpoint, there is no test of functionality to determine species of life. A fetus is a human life, it can't be anything else. Now, is it "fully developed" or "partially developed" or "under developed"? These things can certainly be debated, but what it IS, can't be debated. Science and biology have already established, it is living, it is human, therefore, it is human life.

For the record, you and I are not yet "fully developed" human beings.

Science doesn't explain things in stone, science is constantly changing and old ideas are tossed out and replaced by new ones. So, saying that something IS, because of science, can be debated.