CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Abortion is immoral to anyone with a heart and a sense of what is right and wrong. But our law in America allows a mother to kill her unborn child, as long as she hires it done. If she does it herself she may face being charged with taking a life. Our laws are whishy washy about this. They do not give the unborn personhood and protection, they stand on the principle that its the womans body and then they stipulate when she can have the abortion. Science is clear to when human life starts....and it does not start after nine months of pregnancy.
Yeah sure, I'm pro-choice... pro-choice in the sense that the choice is made when the soon-to-be mother chose to act irresponsibly and have unprotected sex.
So many liberals out there try to paint this idealistic picture that you can make stupid decisions without any real consequences, but that's simply not true. When you have unprotected sex, a baby is conceived. At that moment, whether the baby has a pumping heart or not, it becomes a mother's natural and personal responsibility to do what is best for the baby. That could mean one of many options, such as raising the baby yourself, putting it up for adoption, or any number of alternatives. But I will tell you, as basic human decency should tell you, that anyone arguing that the termination of that baby is what's best for the baby is wrong in the most perverse way conceivable.
You chose to act irresponsibly. Now you must face the consequences, and just because you don't want to does NOT give you the right to terminate the existence of a potential human being.
Now, of course there are cases of rape and/or incest conceptions. In these cases, I do not feel that the mother should be forced to carry a child she does not deserve to have. She did nothing wrong, and should not be forced to carry the offspring of her rapist. But at the same time, I still believe that life begins at conceptions, and at that point it become a moral judgment for the mother to make. Do you believe in giving life to another human being, filling it with opportunity to make a name for himself or herself, or do you believe that you'd like to deliver children following consensual and natural intercourse between a man and a woman? At that point, the government should have nothing to do at all with the mother's say; she is no longer the irresponsible one, but rather the victim of a gruesome and despicable crime.
I got pregnant whilst using the contraceptive pill, it's not as uncommon as you think. Don't assume every person who is pregnant isn't responsible. Just to clarify I didn't abort her, I have a daughter. However I'm just using this as a point that not all accidental pregnancies are because people are stupid enough to have sex without contraception.
Now, rape and incest aren't the only circumstance that warrant abortion. Have you considered medical problems, deformities and disabilities in an unborn baby? What about a heroin addict, a alcoholic? What about someone with severe mental health problems (bi-polar, schizophrenia, BPD)? How about a homeless person? Do you think it is okay in these cases?
I don't think any situation should dictate whether a Mother decides to proceed with a pregnancy. It's how the mother (or doctor) perceives the circumstance of her pregnancy. If she feels the unborn child would have a negative life or her life would be impacted seriously (not superficially) then she has the right to terminate her pregnancy.
If you are a woman and have a brain you know that any birth control method can fail, unless she has had a hysterectomy. So the woman takes the chance, it is her decision, HER RESPONSIBILTY. It's not always about stupidity...but that does not chance the responsiblity part or the fact that says....a human life starts at conception.
Why do you feel that rape and incest warrent abortion? Is the innocent child in the wombs life less than one in a womb who got there by a mother who was not raped? Do you think that if you walked into a hospital nursery and you were told that one babys mother had been raped...that you would be able to pick it out? Why does two acts of violence make sense? So the woman goes through the rape and then knowing she killed the child inside her. Do you know how mothers would cope with this extra trauma?
And are you saying that because a child has a deformity that it deserves to die? Wow...how compassionate and materialist you are. ARe you perfect in appearence? Lets abort babies because they have problems.......Hitler had the same idea did you know that? He believed in killing the weak, the dredges of society. Again you are blaming the unborn for the sins of the parent. I have personally seen drug babies...and while they have a hard time at first...they can be saved and they can lead normal lives. You are making excuses for the killing.
How about the woman who does not want to get stretch marks...the woman who wants to finish school, the woman who does know who the father is, the woman who does not want another child of that sex?
You know it is sad that you feel this way...that you would be so judgemental that to solve a problem you have to kill a living human being. That you would speak for another human who cant speak for themselves, and choose death. You are choosing death...for all the "what-if's"
What right do you have to determine how someone MIGHT LIVE?
What if you were poor....and the government said that everyone who made less than a certain amount couldn't have a child, that if you got pregnant you would have to abort because if you had one it would be a burdon on society. Would you be ok with that?
What did you mean by your comment...."life would be impacted seriously (not superficially)"? What right do you have to tell a woman why she cant abort at any time?
So the woman takes the chance, it is her decision, HER RESPONSIBILTY
You really are a sexist pig. The male who has sex with her and impregnates takes half the responsibility for pregnancy. It's not solely a woman.
Why do you feel that rape and incest warrent abortion
Because if a child is going to make her life more awful than what she's already experienced she has the choice to not go through that. I'm not saying you should abort in these circumstances but I understand entirely why people do.
And are you saying that because a child has a deformity that it deserves to die?
You are possibly the biggest word mincer ever. I personally wouldn't abort a child on these grounds and I'm not saying people should. But yet again I understand and sympathize with someone who does.
.Hitler had the same idea did you know that?
Stop calling and comparing me to Hitler. It's so rude.
You are making excuses for the killing.
I'm not making excuses. I'm saying I understand why woman would abort in these situations. Stop acting like I advocate death and I'm murdering people.
How about the woman who does not want to get stretch marks
I think that's probably a very selfish reason however I don't know the woman's background maybe she has serious depression and her self esteem is low. Hence I said "life would be impacted seriously (not superficially)" Oh and in response to your question about I meant, I mean personally if someone were to abort because it was the wrong sex or something along those lines I'd probably think it was a bit selfish. But I wouldn't out right deny the woman the right to do so. And don't call me a hypocrite, because I still believe the woman has the right to abort under those circumstances.
What right do you have to tell a woman why she cant abort at any time
This is coming from the person who believes a woman has no right to abort at all? A woman can abort for whatever reason she likes it has nothing to with me I've never led you to believe that I think only some woman can abort. And just to clarify I've already posted the scientific studies and facts on when a baby feels pain and it's brain is active, and why that is my defining limit on abortion gestation with some exception. If you couldn't be bothered to read it that's your problem.
What I just said is fact like it or not. You want to say that abortion should be legal because its her body...her decision but then you want to blame the man for the risk SHE TOOK. You look silly. Our laws say that the baby is not his enough to be a part of the decision...he has no choice in the matter. Why men don't see this and storm in outrage I don't know. Who is the one that gets pregnant? Can the man get pregnant? Who takes the risk? Either you are so young that you don't know better....or I just don't know, your ignorant about what responsiblity is.
You are cold. But then you respresent death to innocent human beings because you are a pro-abort. You champion killing. And that is what abortion is...whether its in the first month...or ninth, its killing. The abortionists goal isnt to shoot a documentary, or catch a fish, or play a round of golf.......it is to KILL THAT WHICH IS IN THE WOMANS WOMB. It got there sissy because she opened her legs and allowed sperm to swim inside her. She is the one taking the risk...not the man.
You're a typical pro-abort all over the place, not consistent at all. Sigh
If a child is gonna make her life awful...kill it. LMAO So compassionate of you.
catticus....is there something wrong with abortion or not? You personally believe...but you still condone....yes, but no....but maybe...
You gave devormity and imperfection as a valid reason for aborting. You personally wouldnt abort on these grounds.........well my dear what grounds would you kill?
I bring up Hitler because Margaret Sanger...influenced him and she was the founder of Planned Parenthood. Your views on this mirror theirs...because they acted them out. Do some research and you will see. Google...Sanger and Hitler...then see if you agree with them. If you don't I would like to know what you disagree with them on.
You call me a pig and then tell me I am mean for comparing your views to Hitler? Come on........LOL
Do you also support the women who are afraid and kill their born children...Do you also defend people who murder, rape, steal?........hell......you make excuses for everything. You are making excuses by simply not standing up for the unborn.
You are saying death should always be an option. How do you go to bat for the innocent in the womb? You don't.
You think its wrong to abort because the woman does not want stretch marks, it was the wrong sex .....but its ok, if its deformed. Do you ever read what you post here and really really think about what you say and how it sounds. YOU YOU YOU....think
What do YOU think any aborted child in the womb would say if they could talk (hell infant babies cant talk either) and address the one who killed them, the one who presumed they would have a horrible life?
You said you would not deny a woman the right to kill, therefore you are pro-abortion, because your response does not defend the life of the ones being killed. You are like the person who drives them to get the abortion cause they have no car...and you think you did nothing to contribute to the killing. LOL
You pro-aborts kill me....no pun intended.
What does pain have to do with anything? The point I was trying to make was...that you are probably pro-abortion UNTIL.......the time you think the fetus can feel pain. And geeze oh petes...we certainly dont want them to feel their skull being crushed do we? I mean that would be inhumane right? You are a joke.
You say the woman has the right to decide whether or not to kill her baby whatever the reason...(the man is not an issue unless money is involved) but that it shouldnt be her responsiblity only........(what the man should pay for the killing?) you think when the baby can feel pain abortion should not be allowed.... not allowed...after some date you randomly have thought up in your head to when the baby MIGHT be viable.
I know the studies...I know people who have done the studies. The fact is....that which is in the womb is human, is alive and is a growing person. Science is on the side of life and defines it in terms that are not pro-choice. Life was not concieved to kill in this way, it is unfortunate that you and others do not put any worth in the womb.
Finally I forgot to ask... You believe the male should have a right in the choice of abortion. What if the male wanted an abortion and the woman didn't? I assume you wouldn't be so happy about that right then. That's part of the reason why men don't generally have a legal say, baring in mind most woman consult with the father and come to a mutual agreement anyway. You also argue that pregnancy is entirely down the woman yet you believe she shouldn't have the final say on the child. So which is it, is the woman solely responsible for pregnancy and the child or are both sexes equally responsible?
her decision but then you want to blame the man for the risk SHE TOOK
I can assure the only person who looks silly here is you. A man is HALF the responsibility of a pregnancy. It's not my fault that a man has no say in abortion maybe if you actually read what I type you would of seen me say that it's probably unfair that a man by law is denied a say. However in a lot of circumstances the woman consults with the man and they come to a mutual agreement on whether to continue the pregnancy or not.
Who is the one that gets pregnant? Can the man get pregnant? Who takes the risk? Either you are so young that you don't know better....or I just don't know, your ignorant about what responsiblity is
A woman gets pregnant a man gets her pregnant they BOTH take the risk. They are both equally responsible for a pregnancy. I know far better than you I've had a pregnancy, I have a daughter, I have one of the greatest responsibilities an individual faces because I am a parent. Don't patronize me.
It got there sissy because she opened her legs and allowed sperm to swim inside her. She is the one taking the risk...not the man.
It's nice that you have to resort to name calling and insulting what a wonderful Christian you are! Why are you implying that every pregnant woman is some sort of whore. The man is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREGNANCY he allowed himself to get a woman pregnant. Your opinion is sexist is so many levels.
catticus....is there something wrong with abortion or not? You personally believe...but you still condone....yes, but no....but maybe..
You don't have to be completely decided on an argument since day one of this debate I stated it's neither right nor wrong it's based on circumstance and how the woman feels. I don't condemn anyone who has abortion.
You gave devormity and imperfection as a valid reason for aborting. You personally wouldnt abort on these grounds.........well my dear what grounds would you kill?
I wouldn't have an abortion personally. Just because I think other people have the right doesn't mean I'd do it myself. The only reason I'd kill another person is to defend myself or my child.
I bring up Hitler because Margaret Sanger...influenced him and she was the founder of Planned Parenthood. Your views on this mirror theirs...because they acted them out. Do some research and you will see. Google...Sanger and Hitler...then see if you agree with them. If you don't I would like to know what you disagree with them on
Are you fucking kidding me? Here is one of Margaret's views advocate abortions on Afro-Americans in order to eliminate what she called "socially undesirable people" so I'm a racist now? And there is a massive difference here for a start. I don't believe anyone should be forced to have an abortion it's their choice.
And another She called for the halt to the medical care being given to slum mothers, and decried the expense to the taxpayers of monies being spent on the deaf, blind and dependent. She condemned foreign missionaries for reducing the infant mortality rates in developing countries, and declared charity to be more evil than for the assistance it provided to the poor and needy. Sanger's thinking moved to fascism in an elitist attitude that presumes to judge who is worthy to live and to die.
I don't agree with ANYTHING this woman promoted or believed. She didn't believe woman had the right to choose abortion she wanted to force them without a choice. She is racist scum and I have no common ground with any of these views. This is the most disgusting thing anyone has ever accused me of. How dare you?
You call me a pig and then tell me I am mean for comparing your views to Hitler? Come on.......
I never denied that I called you a name. Hypocrite. All you've done since this debate began is name call, I will retaliate.
Do you also support the women who are afraid and kill their born children...Do you also defend people who murder, rape, steal?........hell......you make excuses for everything. You are making excuses by simply not standing up for the unborn.
No I don't, they're not even the same thing. They're not the same circumstance. I don't make excuses I share my beliefs and opinions and they vary on all of these subjects. How is not condemning something making excuses. Not everyone has to agree with you, it's not the final word or the truth it's an opinion.
You think its wrong to abort because the woman does not want stretch marks, it was the wrong sex .....but its ok, if its deformed.
Hold up! I didn't say it was wrong I said it was a little selfish. I never said she couldn't.
You said you would not deny a woman the right to kill, therefore you are pro-abortion, because your response does not defend the life of the ones being killed. You are like the person who drives them to get the abortion cause they have no car...and you think you did nothing to contribute to the killing.
You are a vile, horrible person to accuse someone of acts like this. How dare you say I contribute to abortion. If a woman asked me if she should have an abortion I'd say 'It's up to you, it's your choice'. I wouldn't judge her, I wouldn't influence her opinion. If someone is considering an abortion than they aren't anti-abortion anyway and pro-abortionists existing won't mean diddly squat to their decision.
What does pain have to do with anything? The point I was trying to make was...that you are probably pro-abortion UNTIL.......the time you think the fetus can feel pain. And geeze oh petes...we certainly dont want them to feel their skull being crushed do we? I mean that would be inhumane right? You are a joke.
Yes it would be inhumane to inflict pain onto a fetus in my opinion, hence I think it's okay before then. Pain has everything to do with it, if death wasn't painful people wouldn't be so scared of it. I don't have to be entirely pro abortion. Just like I wouldn't advocate theft but in a certain circumstance I would like if my daughter was starving I'd steal food for her without a second thought. Again thanks for the insult, what a wonderful Christian you are. You can act self-righteous and holier than thou but you are a terrible person verbally insulting people, demeaning them and being downright rude. Not to mention you lie. Very Godly.
You say the woman has the right to decide whether or not to kill her baby whatever the reason...(the man is not an issue unless money is involved)
Is that your opinion that a man is not involved unless it's money? You're wrong, having been pregnant and had a child my partners financial contribution to her life are the least meaningful thing, his love and nurturing for us throughout pregnancy and into life is. If you're lying again and claiming this is my opinion then again you're obviously very wrong.
after some date you randomly have thought up in your head to when the baby MIGHT be viable.
What? A date I randomly made up? No the youngest baby to live is 22 weeks that is the viable age as our medicine currently stands. And the second trimester is when a baby feels pain that is science, I linked you the information but it's clear you obviously don't read half of what people try to say to you. Which is where I get my opinion on when I think abortion is okay.
it is unfortunate that you and others do not put any worth in the womb
If I had no worth for the womb why would I have a child?
No my dear you do not obviously know the law. Our government says the child belongs to her, that she has the right to terminate the pregnancy WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION FROM HIM. He does not even have to know, even if he is the father. If he was recognized as a player...the law would not be what it is today. Nothing forces her to put him on the birth certificate either. That is the law.
The fact is, the baby is hers at conception….she took the risk.
The sperm leaves his body...and enters her. His part is done. The sperm was a gift, he certainly can’t ask for it back can he? LOL She holds the cards and has him by the you know what...that is if he wants the baby, because whether he wants it or not.......it’s NOT AN ISSUE.
Of course I am a Christian and don't believe it should be this way, but that is the law today.
I believe personally that the man should be considered....that she should not be allowed to make a decision like that of abortion. Like I said today she can kill and he need not even know it. I talk to men all the time whose wives or girlfriends got an abortion behind their backs.
You said it’s unfair........why? You are trying to make yourself feel better look better. You are pro-choice and believe the option should be there remember. Consulting and being an equal member who makes decisions is another thing.
You said, “It's nice that you have to resort to name calling and insulting what a wonderful Christian you are! Why are you implying that every pregnant woman is some sort of whore. The man is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREGNANCY he allowed himself to get a woman pregnant. Your opinion is sexist is so many levels.”
Am I calling names? Didn’t you call me a pig? Better reread that section. Am I insulting you because you are pro-abortion? Well gee I am sorry, the truth hurts. You said yourself that you believe for whatever reason…that abortion should be legal and an option for any woman should she need it.
Now if the way I described it sounds crass…sorry, but I was not going into a lengthy description of how babies are made. Most abortions happen on unwed women....women mainly who profess to be Christian in fact. That does not change the fact how they got pregnant. Why don’t you describe it for us in more politically correct terms? It still won’t change the truth of how it happened.
As I said AGAIN……….the man is an onlooker so says the law….that is if he is not married to the girl who is allowing him in. Is that better way to put it?
You are absolutely unbelievable. You want to blame……and blame you do, for what is a woman’s issue, so says the law. What do you not get? Don’t you have the guts to call it like it is? If the man is accountable wouldn’t he have a decision in the pregnancy? NO THE GOVERNMENT SAYS NO. HE IS NOT AN ISSUE and HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
As for condemning anyone for an abortion…this discussion is not about that. I work with women who have had abortions….because I know what it’s like, I had one. I was one of those women who spread her legs. It was my call, my responsibility and the pain and agony I suffered was on me as it should be. So don’t tell me or begin to know about how it feels or what someone goes through. The work I do is in this field, I see the pain, especially afterwards. And guess what………..the pain is just not experienced by the woman, but by the boyfriends, the husbands the children. The woman calls the shots as I did when I had mine some thirty years ago. I would give anything to be able to take that day back…and I know hundreds and hundreds of women who feel the same way.
You are pro-choice whether you want to believe it or not…BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY CONDONE OTHERS the right to kill. Were the people that stood by and did nothing about those who were marched into Hitler’s ovens… pro-life? How about those people that owned slaves? Would you have owned a slave or condoned someone else owning one?
And do you have to use the F bomb in order to debate? Is it an effective way to get your point across?
Of course you will retaliate…you condone abortion which is violence.
You ranted on……‘You are a vile, horrible person to accuse someone of acts like this. How dare you say I contribute to abortion. If a woman asked me if she should have an abortion I'd say 'It's up to you, it's your choice'. I wouldn't judge her, I wouldn't influence her opinion. If someone is considering an abortion than they aren't anti-abortion anyway and pro-abortionists existing won't mean diddly squat to their decision.”
I was making an analogy that you simply did not like. Well does the person who takes the money for the killing contribute? How about the nurse that hands the abortionist the tool that crushes the skull? If someone drives someone to a robbery….and they are caught….does the police just say….ok you had nothing to do with it goodbye? I mean come on. If you refused to take her to the abortion, she might not get it. If the doctor didn’t show up, the nurse refuse to do it…the baby might have a chance.
You said, “ Yes it would be inhumane to inflict pain onto a fetus in my opinion, hence I think it's okay before then. Pain has everything to do with it, if death wasn't painful people wouldn't be so scared of it. I don't have to be entirely pro abortion. Just like I wouldn't advocate theft but in a certain circumstance I would like if my daughter was starving I'd steal food for her without a second thought. Again thanks for the insult, what a wonderful Christian you are. You can act self-righteous and holier than thou but you are a terrible person verbally insulting people, demeaning them and being downright rude. Not to mention you lie. Very Godly.”
You’re so ridiculous it’s not even funny. Bolonga…many people are afraid of death because they do not know what is beyond it….not just because of pain. Insult? Retaliation, isn’t that what it’s all about, you said so yourself didn’t you? Then you judge me when you think I retaliate….why are you judging me from different standards than you live by………? LOL Oh yes because I am a Christian, right. Am I supposed to just sing kum ba yah around a campfire and shutup, not stand up for the things THAT ARE UNCHRISTIAN? No case for abortion can be made scripturally. Christ would want me to stand up the his little children, he would want me to share my testimony and how my sin, devastated my life until I came to Him. So you don’t like how I put things……..Christ said, they hated me first and will hate you as well.
I am not demeaning anyone but stating the truth. You might be the greatest person in the world, but you are pro-abortion and do nothing to stand up against this injustice. you are not for and against....you are for......because you think it should be legal.
You said,“ Is that your opinion that a man is not involved unless it's money? You're wrong, having been pregnant and had a child my partners financial contribution to her life are the least meaningful thing, his love and nurturing for us throughout pregnancy and into life is. If you're lying again and claiming this is my opinion then again you're obviously very wrong.”
I said, if a woman and man are married……he cannot stop her from killing their child by abortion. He has no rights even though it is his child. BUT HE WOULD BE HELD legally responsible for child support if HE DID NOT WANT THE CHILD AND WANTED HER TO GET AN ABORTION. She calls the shots.
Now if they were not married, she can’t hold him financially accountable for anything. The baby is hers, unless she puts his name on the birth certificate…and in that case he might for forced to pay.
You said, “What? A date I randomly made up? No the youngest baby to live is 22 weeks that is the viable age as our medicine currently stands. And the second trimester is when a baby feels pain that is science, I linked you the information but it's clear you obviously don't read half of what people try to say to you. Which is where I get my opinion on when I think abortion is okay.”
Then there was Amillia Taylor who is also often cited as the most-premature baby. She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation. At birth she was 9 inches (23 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams). She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.
There are babies like this all over the world being born. My niece was born 23 weeks 4 days. She spent five months in the hospital but is perfect today at 18 years old. She weighed just over 1 pound.
I know the information out there…you need to get educated and read a bit more, instead of just google and posting.
Pain is not an issue….personhood is and you do not give the fetus any personhood at all.
“If I had no worth for the womb why would I have a child?"
You value your own child and don't care about another in the womb....?????
Yea that is odd for someone who would stand by while another child was slaughtered. Just makes it all better if you know it is painless for that fetus at 22 weeks, right?
No my dear you do not obviously know the law. Our government says the child belongs to her, that she has the right to terminate the pregnancy WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION FROM HIM
When did I say that wasn't the law. Do you read anything I type?
The fact is, the baby is hers at conception….she took the risk.
Tell me how many people it takes to conceive a child. Can a woman conceive on her own? Can a man produce a child on his own? No. Both sexes are required to conceive a baby, they are both responsible for the act of conception.
The sperm was a gift, he certainly can’t ask for it back can he?
What? Answer this question please. Does a man make a conscious decision to have sex and deposit his sperm in the woman? Does he know that the woman has a possibility to get pregnant? Does he know that if she were to get pregnant the woman would have the right to abort? Yes he knows all of these things. And yet he still chooses to impregnate a woman. Therefore he is half responsible. He is not stupid he knows the risk just as much as the woman and takes the responsibility just as much as the woman.
I believe personally that the man should be considered....
If the man is to be considered then he has to be considered on all grounds. Which means if his opinion was taken into consideration by law then he could force a woman to abort a fetus that she wanted to have. Seeing as you're anti-abortion wouldn't that bother you?
Like I said today she can kill and he need not even know it. I talk to men all the time whose wives or girlfriends got an abortion behind their backs
Well if they talk about it they obviously know about it.
You said it’s unfair........why?
I said what's unfair?
Am I calling names?
Here's a list! Directly copied and pasted from what you have said to me. Is this what the word of Jesus taught you do? Name call?
Materialist
Judge mental
You look silly
your ignorant
You are cold.
You champion killing
sissy
Hitler, Margaret Sanger. Your views on this mirror theirs.
You are a joke
You’re so ridiculous it’s not even funny
you respresent death to innocent human beings
Didn’t you call me a pig? Better reread that section
You deserved to be called a pig. I hate sexism. I'd call you a pig if your were racist or homophobic, being sexist is discriminating and holds the same grounds to me. Oh and perhaps you re-read that section because here is what I said
I never denied that I called you a name. Hypocrite. All you've done since this debate began is name call, I will retaliate.
I'm not the one in denial. I called you a pig once. You've demeaned and name called multiple times.
You said yourself that you believe for whatever reason…that abortion should be legal and an option for any woman should she need it.
I know and your point is?
Most abortions happen on unwed women....women mainly who profess to be Christian in fact. That does not change the fact how they got pregnant. Why don’t you describe it for us in more politically correct terms? It still won’t change the truth of how it happened.
What on earth are you on about? I've had sex I know what sex entails, I know how a child is conceived. You said this It got there sissy because she opened her legs and allowed sperm to swim inside her. She is the one taking the risk...not the man This is SEXIST, you think a man has no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. Of course he does. Could a woman get pregnant without a man? No. Therefore the man HAS to assume HALF the responsibility for a child being conceived. There are two things that create a life, an egg and a sperm. Half and half. They both decide to have sex, they both know the risks, they both procreate. They are both responsible.
As I said AGAIN……….the man is an onlooker so says the law….that is if he is not married
An unmarried man has the same say as a married man by law. For someone who claims that I know nothing on the law of abortion you sure know bugger all yourself.
girl who is allowing him in
The man also allows himself in. Stop implying the girl is always the instigator of sex. If the man didn't want to have sex and ejaculate in her then it would be rape. If he didn't want to get her pregnant he could have said no or used a condom. Just as the girl could say no or use a condom. They both take equal blame.
Don’t you have the guts to call it like it is? If the man is accountable wouldn’t he have a decision in the pregnancy?
How, explain to me how scientifically a man is not responsible for pregnancy? That is how it is I'm afraid. It takes a man and a woman to procreate. They both did it. He doesn't have a decision in pregnancy by law because....oh God do I have to repeat myself AGAIN...because if he chose for her to abort when she didn't want to he would be forcing her. It's not the man who has to carry the baby for 9 months. And if you READ what I say... most fathers do have a say because the mother and father will come to a mutual agreement.
As for condemning anyone for an abortion…this discussion is not about that
Seriously? All you've done is called everyone names and demeaned and condemned them for believing a woman has a right to abortion.
because I know what it’s like, I had one
I'm sorry about the fact you had one but it doesn't mean I can't look past the fact you are a complete hypocrite. How dare you tell me I contribute to abortion and patronize me like that when I've never done anything to contribute to abortion and you've had one.
I was one of those women who spread her legs. It was my call, my responsibility and the pain and agony I suffered was on me as it should be.
In a sense I'm beginning to feel like you have had some strange notions thrust upon you. And I actually feel very sorry for you. Someone has clearly put it into your head that you are bad person or a whore or something. The person who had sex with you and created your child is half responsible. It takes two people to make a child. You cannot create a life on your own.
So don’t tell me or begin to know about how it feels or what someone goes through
Again stop lying about things I've said. I never said I did, in fact this seems to be a trait that a lot of Americans have that I hate. Telling someone 'I know how you feel'.
I see the pain, especially afterwards
I have friends and family who have had abortions I would never claim to know how they felt, they talk about it and of course most of them are distraught. It's abortion. I never said it was happy fairy la la land. However they could have felt worse if they had a child. What about mothers who are forced into keeping a child and are miserable, unable to love the child? Do their emotions mean nothing?
but by the boyfriends, the husbands the children
I'm not denying it isn't an upsetting process, stop assuming you know everything about my opinion when I haven't even spoken a word about this. Who in their right mind would tell a child they aborted their sibling? How selfish.
I would give anything to be able to take that day back…and I know hundreds and hundreds of women who feel the same way
I'm sure there are plenty of woman who feel they did the right thing too.
You are pro-choice whether you want to believe it or not…BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY CONDONE OTHERS the right to kill
Not pro-choice thanks. I have a limit. That's like saying 'you're a speeder and broke the law because you drive fast even thought it's within the speed limit!' It makes no sense.
Were the people that stood by and did nothing about those who were marched into Hitler’s ovens… pro-life?
What has the holocaust got to do with abortion. Since they felt pain and were living, viable humans this has no relation to my opinion.
How about those people that owned slaves? Would you have owned a slave or condoned someone else owning one?
Again what does having a slave have to do with abortion. Of course I wouldn't and I wouldn't condone it but you're just talking about meaningless jargon now.
And do you have to use the F bomb in order to debate? Is it an effective way to get your point across?
I sure has hell do when someone accuses me of being a racist murderer.
Of course you will retaliate…you condone abortion which is violence.
I don't think calling someone a pig is violent, how did you come to that conclusion?
You’re so ridiculous it’s not even funny. Bolonga…many people are afraid of death because they do not know what is beyond it….not just because of pain
I didn't say pain is the only reason people are scared of death. Stop lying. I'm not scared of what's beyond it, I don't believe in religious afterlife in a heaven and hell sense. And if it was true, which I don't believe it is, everyone I love and know has already been condemned to hell in the eyes of God, I'd rather be there supporting my friends and family than sitting in heaven with you.
I was making an analogy that you simply did not like. Well does the person who takes the money for the killing contribute? How about the nurse that hands the abortionist the tool that crushes the skull?
You accused me of having the same views as a Nazi, you accused me of being a racist murderer. And now you think beecause people perform abortions and assist them they are Nazi's? By the way I am none of these examples and I've never contributed to an abortion. Do you think you are a Nazi and a racist murderer? Since you had an abortion? Abortions are free here. And I also think you've got the abortion operation all wrong. They aren't performed like that anymore. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/How-is-it-performed.aspx
Then you judge me when you think I retaliate….why are you judging me from different standards than you live by………
You name called, you didn't retaliate you instigated. Since revenge is against God's will wouldn't you be sinning again if it had of been retaliation. I'm not judging you by different standards or religion. I'm just telling you what the Bible says, isn't that what happens at church every time you go? Are they judging you?
So you don’t like how I put things……..Christ said, they hated me first and will hate you as well.
No I just don't want to be quoted scripture since I don't believe in it as the divine truth. It's worthless quoting the Bible to me. I will only accept proven fact as a reliable source.
I am not demeaning anyone but stating the truth
Refer back to my list of insults and things you have compared me to.
BUT HE WOULD BE HELD legally responsible for child support if HE DID NOT WANT THE CHILD AND WANTED HER TO GET AN ABORTION
Good. If they were married like you stated he wouldn't be paying child support anyway.
There are babies like this all over the world being born. My niece was born 23 weeks 4 days. She spent five months in the hospital but is perfect today at 18 years old. She weighed just over 1 pound.
For the final time read what I say. Or I'm just going to ignore you and watch you continuing to manipulate the truth and lie. I said I don't believe abortion should be allowed past the second trimester as that is when the fetus feels pains. Unless it's a medical reason for the mother or baby.
I know the information out there…you need to get educated and read a bit more, instead of just google and posting.
Why because you post things from Wikipedia? Wow I wish I had that knowledge. Don't tell me I need to 'get educated' I think it's clear to see who has more accurate spelling and grammar. The only things I've posted are links and small quotes. Everything else is my words. You ask for evidence you get it.
You value your own child and don't care about another in the womb....?????
I don't really feel the 'worldwide love'. I love my family and friends. That is it. I am not religious or spiritual I do not feel compelled to love anyone other than the people I feel genuine love for. I do not love you, I do not love strangers whether they be child, adult, fetus. At best I like some random people. That does not mean I don't value other people though, I value good people, respectful people, kind people, intelligent people e.t.c
Yea that is odd for someone who would stand by while another child was slaughtered. Just makes it all better if you know it is painless for that fetus at 22 weeks, right?
What do you want me to do set fire to the abortion clinics? Did you want me to pioneer a revolution? Do you want to preach to people? Sorry I won't and I can't. If I saw an actual baby or child I'd intervene with their death. But what the hell is someone meant to do about a fetus. Tie the mother up and feed her through a drip until she gives birth?
Fuck sakes, read my words PLEASE. When does the second trimester begin? 12 weeks that's when a baby feels pain, derp. I already said that about 6 times?
You said, “Tell me how many people it takes to conceive a child. Can a woman conceive on her own? Can a man produce a child on his own? No. Both sexes are required to conceive a baby, they are both responsible for the act of conception.”
It takes two, the woman can’t conceive on her own and no man can produce a child on his own. But that has nothing to do with responsibility. Our government even though it recognizes the father if they are married…does not take him into consideration, should she want to abort. He simply is not an issue. The government recognizes the risks of the woman and awards here the right to decide.
If they are both are responsible for the risks they take…then why are the fathers rights stripped?
You said, “Answer this question please. Does a man make a conscious decision to have sex and deposit his sperm in the woman? Does he know that the woman has a possibility to get pregnant? Does he know that if she were to get pregnant the woman would have the right to abort? Yes he knows all of these things. And yet he still chooses to impregnate a woman. Therefore he is half responsible. He is not stupid he knows the risk just as much as the woman and takes the responsibility just as much as the woman.”
Yes he does. Yes he does. Yes he does. BUT, he also knows he can walk away if he doesn’t want to be involved. Example…..
Two kids having sex on the beach during spring break. They want to have sex obviously for pleasure. They might not even know their names or where they are from. Now who takes the big risk should they get pregnant? The guy or the gal. Who can fade into the sunset, never to be seen or heard from again? THE MAN She takes the big risk. What risk did the kid take? NONE. This Cassie Anthony trial…..she says she has no idea who the father of Caylee was. She was known for sleeping around and they did DNA samples on many of her acquaintances. Nothing turned up. They even did DNA on her father and brother. Who got pregnant, who had the baby? She did…because whether reckless sex happened or not…the risk she took didn’t pan out….she got pregnant….and where is the dad???????
You said, “If the man is to be considered then he has to be considered on all grounds. Which means if his opinion was taken into consideration by law then he could force a woman to abort a fetus that she wanted to have. Seeing as you're anti-abortion wouldn't that bother you?”
Well in my opinion he should be considered on all grounds. In this case I believe she should have the baby and that because she did not want it, it would go to him.
You said, “Here's a list! Directly copied and pasted from what you have said to me. Is this what the word of Jesus taught you do? Name call?”
Materialist
Judge mental
You look silly
your ignorant
You are cold.
You champion killing
sissy
Hitler, Margaret Sanger. Your views on this mirror theirs.
You are a joke
You’re so ridiculous it’s not even funny
you respresent death to innocent human beings “
You also said, “You deserved to be called a pig. I hate sexism. I'd call you a pig if your were racist or homophobic, being sexist is discriminating and holds the same grounds to me. Oh and perhaps you re-read that section because here is what I said
I never denied that I called you a name. Hypocrite. All you've done since this debate began is name call, I will retaliate.
I'm not the one in denial. I called you a pig once. You've demeaned and name called multiple times.”
And you want to compare your use of the noun Pig…to the descriptions I have used? Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective? You gotta come up with something better than this. LOL
A pig is a filthy animal that lives in a sty………LMAO
How old are you really, are you even an adult? What I stated was the truth in the nicest terms possible.
And why are you bringing religion into this. All these humanists bringing religion into debates…when I have not. Is it because of my name? Again ignorance…go research what a churchmouse is. Do you think that Christians because of the love commandment should just take it…roll over and play dead? Why do you judge me by perfect standards and not yourself. You have a filthy mouth and it demeans your posts…and makes you look like you have no class. You use the F bomb like it’s a conjunction. Your views on abortion and the reasons for it mirror Hitler and Sangers and I could add a few more for that matter…..but will leave it with these two. Why don’t you do some heavy research on this…not just cut and pasting something you quickly found on google? Your position is heartless, cold, and you like I said are ignorant of the facts. Your pro-abort position makes for champion killing, not life.
I said, “You said yourself that you believe for whatever reason…that abortion should be legal and an option for any woman should she need it.
You said, I know and your point is?”
And this is not championing abortion? LMAO And you want people to believe your pro-life? LMAO
I said this, “It got there sissy because she opened her legs and allowed sperm to swim inside her. She is the one taking the risk...not the man Then you replied with this. “This is SEXIST, you think a man has no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. Of course he does. Could a woman get pregnant without a man? No. Therefore the man HAS to assume HALF the responsibility for a child being conceived. There are two things that create a life, an egg and a sperm. Half and half. They both decide to have sex, they both know the risks, they both procreate. They are both responsible.”
Why? is biology sexist? The truth is the truth it seeks no sides. We have hashed this over and over and you will never get it I’m afraid. The man does not have to assume squat…unless he is married and the courts order him to pay. Did the kid on the beach have to do anything? How many one night stands you think happen when the male just takes off…knowing or not knowing if he impregnanted the woman?
You said, “An unmarried man has the same say as a married man by law. For someone who claims that I know nothing on the law of abortion you sure know bugger all yourself.'
Not true, go educate yourself, not going to do it for you. Bugger? Boy have not heard that one since Kindergarten.
You said, “The man also allows himself in. Stop implying the girl is always the instigator of sex. If the man didn't want to have sex and ejaculate in her then it would be rape. If he didn't want to get her pregnant he could have said no or used a condom. Just as the girl could say no or use a condom. They both take equal blame.”
Only because she says YES. He goes on her invite. If they are running around the bases…have not scored a grand slam… and she says no……..it’s no, you can’t come in. If he does against her wishes it’s rape. Instigating has nothing to do with this. But whose body is changed by the sex act? Not his..Hers. She knows that what he might leave behind will affect her for at least nine months. He knows that it won’t affect him in the least…..UNLESS HE IS MARRIED.
“How, explain to me how scientifically a man is not responsible for pregnancy? That is how it is I'm afraid. It takes a man and a woman to procreate. They both did it. He doesn't have a decision in pregnancy by law because....oh God do I have to repeat myself AGAIN...because if he chose for her to abort when she didn't want to he would be forcing her. It's not the man who has to carry the baby for 9 months. And if you READ what I say... most fathers do have a say because the mother and father will come to a mutual agreement.”
It does take a man and a woman to procreate…which is why I also am against same sex unions, it’s not natural…but that’s another debate. They both have sex….blah blah……..and as I said unless he is married he can take off and never be seen again. SO WHO TAKES THE BIG RISK?
Sure some married couples are on the same page….but we will never know how many married women go behind their spouses backs to kill, because they know their husband would not approve. There is no way of knowing that statistic.
You said, “Seriously? All you've done is called everyone names and demeaned and condemned them for believing a woman has a right to abortion.
Not true. I state the facts and back them up with scientific evidence. You champion killing so you don’t want to see the evidence. You want the killing option open which in my opinion is cold.
You said, “I'm sorry about the fact you had one but it doesn't mean I can't look past the fact you are a complete hypocrite. How dare you tell me I contribute to abortion and patronize me like that when I've never done anything to contribute to abortion and you've had one.”
Why on earth would you of all people be sorry? Mind boggling to say the least. I am not a hypocrite, I simply made a mistake lived in hell and want to share my story. My kind of story is the one PP does not want out there, because they want abortion pictures in the best way.
Tell me……Have you ever in your entire life made a mistake? Did you ever think you knew the truth about something and then found that you didn’t believe that way all along? Are human beings allowed to make and learn by their errors? What?...we can’t change our minds about issues, feelings? Must be nice to be perfect. Well my position on abortion changed….and I am allowed to change my mind…..are you?
When you make a huge mistake….if you have children don’t you want to protect them, teach them what might hurt them? What you’re saying here….is that I do not have the right to change my mind, I don’t have a right to warn people about what could happen especially mentally with abortion? You are the one who is judgemental and arrogant….. but then you’re perfect remember?
“In a sense I'm beginning to feel like you have had some strange notions thrust upon you. And I actually feel very sorry for you. Someone has clearly put it into your head that you are bad person or a whore or something. The person who had sex with you and created your child is half responsible. It takes two people to make a child. You cannot create a life on your own.”
Oh my goodness don’t. I was not a child when I had it….I should have known better…and I took the risk because I knew what would happen. But like most others in the heat of passion I guess I didn’t care and did it anyway. No one thrusted anything on me, and guess what, I do not blame anyone but myself. I am a wonderful person MOST of the time, not perfect like you but I am ok. I have raised two wonderful, happy and successful children, am a grandmother to two little girls, have been married over thirty years to the SAME MAN….and have a blessed life. Christ forgave me when I became His. And I promised Him that abortion would be my witness…to share what HE did for me in my hour of need. I am the luckiest person in the world. The baby I aborted was my husbands. A pregnancy at that time would have been hard. We were on the same page…until later…when I started suffering, he could not understand my feelings. He was supportive but of course our faiths in God are different, because when I became Christs, he didn’t. Worldviews change….and mine did drastically. We have adjusted…and he now tolerates my feelings, actions. I do not force my beliefs on him. I pray someday we will be on the same page.
You said, “I have friends and family who have had abortions I would never claim to know how they felt, they talk about it and of course most of them are distraught. It's abortion. I never said it was happy fairy la la land. However they could have felt worse if they had a child. What about mothers who are forced into keeping a child and are miserable, unable to love the child? Do their emotions mean nothing?”
Distraught about what? Tell me….how can you on one hand think abortion is horrible, not a fairy lala trip….then go against what your morals tell you is wrong? I don’t get it. Abortion if you have ever seen one is horrible. Have you ever seen one? Anyone who does not see one and think it’s horrendous…is cold, compassionless and EMPTY.
Here watch this……..and if you don’t, think about the reasons why you won’t. Search your heart…about why you would support something so barbaric. And if you have children….put them in the place of the tiny one who is getting slaughtered.
I am not Catholic but they always have good stuff on their sites about abortion.
“I'm not denying it isn't an upsetting process, stop assuming you know everything about my opinion when I haven't even spoken a word about this. Who in their right mind would tell a child they aborted their sibling? How selfish.”
What is upsetting about it? And who says the kids are young? I wouldn’t tell a child about abortion for all the obvious reasons. I would at least wait until the child was the age when a lot of kids are having sex. I told my kids when they were teenagers. It’s not selfish…its real life and it happens. Kids see a lot of gruesome stuff on television. What makes abortion different you tell me? It’s the most performed surgery in the world.
I said, “You are pro-choice whether you want to believe it or not…BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY CONDONE OTHERS the right to kill
You said, “Not pro-choice thanks. I have a limit. That's like saying 'you're a speeder and broke the law because you drive fast even thought it's within the speed limit!' It makes no sense.”
You are pro-abortion period, end of story. You want to deceive yourself into thinking you’re not but you are. You condone what that video I wanted you to watch…shows. That’s what you think should be legal. You do not stand up for all life.
“What has the holocaust got to do with abortion. Since they felt pain and were living, viable humans this has no relation to my opinion.”
Well there were people back then who stood by and did nothing….and looked the other way. In a way it was humanity at its worst that let all those gassed down. Everyone participated……good should have overcome evil, but didn’t. People act out of fear….and I am sure there were people who did not like what Hitler was doing BUT DIDN’T DO ANYTHING TO STOP HIM…I am talking about the people in his own country….the people who could have physically taken himout….the guards, etc.
Abortion is like that….people sit by and do nothing….they think anything they do….won’t change the laws, won’t help the victim. But if every pastor on every pulpit preached the evils of abortion….if every parent with compassion in his heart would stand up for what is right and good…….abortion would once again be considered murder. If we stood up as a nation about the evils of abortion….wow….how many lives would be changed, hearts mended. But we are a secular country that has turned its face from God…and it shows by our morals and our morals influence our laws. I work with people who are atheists….so it is possible for people with no faith at all to stand up and make a difference. Its knowing what is right and wrong, what is good and evil………..standing up for it, no matter what.
You said, “Again what does having a slave have to do with abortion. Of course I wouldn't and I wouldn't condone it but you're just talking about meaningless jargon now.”
Again talking about standing up for what is right, doing the right thing……..even if you are swimming up stream. I know the odds are against abortion being overturned are slim to none……but I keep working and praying I am wrong. Society is sinking into a moral less abyss.
You said, “I sure has hell do when someone accuses me of being a racist murderer.”
You condone murder….I never called you a racist.
You said, “I don't think calling someone a pig is violent, how did you come to that conclusion?”
I never use violent adjectives on you….you used a noun to describe me. And swearing is classless…
.
“I didn't say pain is the only reason people are scared of death. Stop lying. I'm not scared of what's beyond it, I don't believe in religious afterlife in a heaven and hell sense. And if it was true, which I don't believe it is, everyone I love and know has already been condemned to hell in the eyes of God, I'd rather be there supporting my friends and family than sitting in heaven with you.”
Well you hold the cards to your future eternity. No one else is responsible but you. And if you’re wrong…you will have all eternity to think about it. How do you know EVERYONE has been condemned? And how do you know that you will be recognizable in hell to your family and friends? If you went to hell with them…..being with family etc…would be just a tad bit good…you would have support, be near the ones you love. And if you have support, then it is not hell. LOL What happens if you get there and you can’t find anyone? Well you would have all eternity thrashing about to find them I suppose.
I know many people in my family who will not go…that is their choice. I bothers me, and I cry about it sometimes when I am praying. But I love Christ more than any other person in the world….and I have faith in Him….more than I have faith in anyone that has ever been in my life. I believe that I will not know if any family does not make it. Heaven is perfect….and it would be hell if you knew someone was not there that you loved.
“You name called, you didn't retaliate you instigated. Since revenge is against God's will wouldn't you be sinning again if it had of been retaliation. I'm not judging you by different standards or religion. I'm just telling you what the Bible says, isn't that what happens at church every time you go? Are they judging you?”
It’s funny all the nonreligious, materialists, humanists, atheists, agnostics always bring up religion, must be they think about it a lot. LOL I do not feel I called you names. I described and compared your worldview to people you obviously you have a problem with. I am certainly not trying to get revenge, come on. I am simply showing you why your worldview is not compassionate or all that good. I am bold, and I do state the facts in ways people feel offended. But I think down inside they are offended because what I say exposes them, gets them thinking about what they think is ok. And you think abortion is ok. And….you are judging me…I point out what you say that are untruths but I am not judging your heart….I can’t, scripture does not allow me to do that…not unless you claim to be a Christian. That is why I bring no scriptures up with you because you don’t know better. God will judge you. I can however judge actions (not hearts) of Christians as they can judge mine and many have done that…I thank them for it because many times more than I would like to admit, I needed judgement. Why do you quote a book you don’t believe in? LOL
You said, “No I just don't want to be quoted scripture since I don't believe in it as the divine truth. It's worthless quoting the Bible to me. I will only accept proven fact as a reliable source.”
You don’t believe in it, yet you use it to make a point. LOL
You said, “I said I don't believe abortion should be allowed past the second trimester as that is when the fetus feels pains. Unless it's a medical reason for the mother or baby.”
You are a pro-abort and you champion abortion period….live with it accept the label take it as your own.
You said, “Why because you post things from Wikipedia? Wow I wish I had that knowledge. Don't tell me I need to 'get educated' I think it's clear to see who has more accurate spelling and grammar. The only things I've posted are links and small quotes. Everything else is my words. You ask for evidence you get it.”
LOL Boy you are really diggin deep now…. I post rarely from Wikipedia….and on this forum have posted from very reliable sources. I am not however handing my posts in to be graded….so I could care less about absolute perfect spelling and punctuation. I work….I live a full life and when I get on here….I slam it out the fastest way I can. If I had to hand in an article or paper ….it would be correct.
You have provided however little evidence, more lies. Just like the lie about the earliest born preemie….I showed you your error. I work in this field and I know….
“I don't really feel the 'worldwide love'. I love my family and friends. That is it. I am not religious or spiritual I do not feel compelled to love anyone other than the people I feel genuine love for. I do not love you, I do not love strangers whether they be child, adult, fetus. At best I like some random people. That does not mean I don't value other people though, I value good people, respectful people, kind people, intelligent people e.t.c”
This is your worldview…and explains what I said all along…why you are pro-abortion. The lack of love for your fellow man shows your true heart. I feel sorry for you actually.
You said, “What do you want me to do set fire to the abortion clinics? Did you want me to pioneer a revolution? Do you want to preach to people? Sorry I won't and I can't. If I saw an actual baby or child I'd intervene with their death. But what the hell is someone meant to do about a fetus. Tie the mother up and feed her through a drip until she gives birth?
Fuck sakes, read my words PLEASE. When does the second trimester begin? 12 weeks that's when a baby feels pain, derp. I already said that about 6 times?”
Who is setting abortion clinics on fire? If you compare the acts of violence against how many abortion clinics there are in the world……its nothing. Pro-lifers are basically kind and compassionate people who respect the law…just try to change it. Am I preaching? What is the difference between you putting opinion and facts out and what I am doing? Do you ever look in a mirror?
You simply act like a juvenile. You have no class... You do not even know what you are saying.
LOL
You said two things in your post…………you are against abortion at the end of the second trimester which would be 24 weeks….and here you say 12 weeks it feels pain. LOL
Can’t let this one go……your hilarious. I mean that in the nicest comedic way possible. LOL
This is what you said earlier… You said, “I said I don't believe abortion should be allowed past the second trimester as that is when the fetus feels pains. Unless it's a medical reason for the mother or baby.”
So is it 12 weeks when you say the fetus can feel pain….or 24 weeks when obviously it can’t. LOL
You do not even know your own position. That is why you look silly and have to swear.
Do you even know when the fetus can feel pain? LOL Naw…you don’t.
Our government even though it recognizes the father if they are married
Even if they are married it's the woman's decision still so this has no validity.
Well in my opinion he should be considered on all grounds. In this case I believe she should have the baby and that because she did not want it, it would go to him
No, no, no. If he is considered on ALL grounds then if he wants and abortion and she doesn't then his opinion counts and his vote for abortion could go ahead.
And you want to compare your use of the noun Pig…to the descriptions I have used? Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?
You also called me a sissy? Sissy is actually considered homophobic by a lot of people. It's not an adjective. Brush up on your English language. It makes no difference if I said you're like a smelly tramp it's no nicer than saying you are a smelly tramp.
How old are you really, are you even an adult? What I stated was the truth in the nicest terms possible.
I'm a fully fledged adult. It is not the truth it's your opinion. And I'm arrogant yet your feelings have to be the truth?
And why are you bringing religion into this. All these humanists bringing religion into debates…when I have not.
Yay another list for me to make. Things you have said religiously to back your opinion:
He was supportive but of course our faiths in God are different, because when I became Christs,
But if every pastor on every pulpit preached the evils of abortion…
But we are a secular country that has turned its face from God…and it shows by our morals and our morals influence our laws.
But I love Christ more than any other person in the world….and I have faith in Him….more than I have faith in anyone that has ever been in my life. I believe that I will not know if any family does not make it. Heaven is perfect….and it would be hell if you knew someone was not there that you loved
I can't be bothered to go through your previous debates but you have mentioned religion a lot more than this.
You have a filthy mouth and it demeans your posts…and makes you look like you have no class.
No, a swear word is a word. It means nothing. Oh look another insult to me. Why thank you very much. And I'm not 'classy' it's not something I can aspire to with all my tattoos!
Your views on abortion and the reasons for it mirror Hitler and Sangers and I could add a few more for that matter…..but will leave it with these two
I think a few re reads are in order here. Read their opinion and read mine. It's not even comparible.
Why don’t you do some heavy research on this…not just cut and pasting something you quickly found on google? Your position is heartless, cold, and you like I said are ignorant of the facts.
My education is nursing. I am going into midwifrey I can assure I need not much education on human biology and the facts of abortion. My opinion is what you think is heartless and cold. To many others it is acceptable and logic. Don't speak for the world
.
Your pro-abort position makes for champion killing, not life.
I'm not pro-abortion is should be considered as a last resort. And if the last resort is an abortion then I accept that. I don't champion killing, I don't tell anyone to abort and I don't abort myself. I just understand why people do.
Why? is biology sexist? The truth is the truth it seeks no sides. We have hashed this over and over and you will never get it I’m afraid. The man does not have to assume squat…unless he is married and the courts order him to pay
Biology isn't sexist again I study it. The context in which you describe things is sexist. The truth is what you perceive it to be. The truth is never what you think. Yes he does. If I had a child unmarried knew the father but we weren't a couple he would still have to pay child support.
They both have sex….blah blah……..and as I said unless he is married he can take off and never be seen again. SO WHO TAKES THE BIG RISK?
My fiance and I weren't married. He took responsibility. He admits he took the risk even though I was on contraception. Stop speaking for everyone not everyone shares your opinion.
Not true. I state the facts and back them up with scientific evidence. You champion killing so you don’t want to see the evidence.
No you don't. You've posted 2 links from wikipedia that prove nothing and a link to a catholic website which I'm not even remotely going to listen to since it is there to create fear into becoming religious. I post genuine scientific evidence and have done throughout my debates. I use my evidence you use yours. Why does it matter?
Not true, go educate yourself, not going to do it for you. Bugger? Boy have not heard that one since Kindergarten.
Because my opinion differs to yours I'm uneducated? No, I have educated myself and come to a conclusion. You have come to a conclusion I'm not going to tell you your opinion is wrong it's an opinion. That's the difference between you and I, I can accept that my opinion isn't right for everyone. You're a forcer, you think that everyone has to share your opinion or they're a bad person. And educate yourself on world language bugger is a common word among adults in England.
Why on earth would you of all people be sorry? Mind boggling to say the least.
So because I believe woman have the right to abortion I no longer have feelings. I feel empathy and sympathy, it's hardly mind boggling that a human being as emotion towards other peoples negative experiences. Stop word twisting.
My kind of story is the one PP does not want out there, because they want abortion pictures in the best way
It's funny you'd repost my statement that abortion is a distressing thing to go through and then claim I want abortion to be seen positively. Consistence in the key in debating. Something you clearly don't have.
Tell me……Have you ever in your entire life made a mistake? Did you ever think you knew the truth about something and then found that you didn’t believe that way all along? Are human beings allowed to make and learn by their errors? What?...we can’t change our minds about issues, feelings? Must be nice to be perfect. Well my position on abortion changed….and I am allowed to change my mind…..are you?
Yes and yes. I never denied this fact so I guess I'll just answer the first two questions. You can change your mind all you like it's no concern to me and I never claimed it to be. I'm allowed to change my mind, I probably won't on this topic though.
What you’re saying here….is that I do not have the right to change my mind, I don’t have a right to warn people about what could happen especially mentally with abortion? You are the one who is judgemental and arrogant….. but then you’re perfect remember?
No I'm not. I'm saying don't judge people on actions you have taken yourself. Again I'm aware of the consequences of abortion. Are you aware of the consequences of having a child you never wanted? Explain to me exactly when I have judged someone and acted arrogantly? Thanks for calling me perfect all the time. I don't believe it myself but you seem to for some odd reason.
When you make a huge mistake….if you have children don’t you want to protect them, teach them what might hurt them?
I protect my child and I will teach her the obvious stranger dangers e.c.t. But I'm not going to tell her to never have a friendship in case they fall out and she gets upset. I won't tell her to never have a relationship in case they break up. A lot of things hurt people you can't lock them up in a box and hope they never socialize. If my daughter was ever pregnant I'd help her. If she asks for the pros and cons I will tell her. If she asks me what to do I will say 'darling, whatever you feel is best for you'. Why? Because her happiness is the most important thing to me.
Well there were people back then who stood by and did nothing….and looked the other way. In a way it was humanity at its worst that let all those gassed down. Everyone participated……good should have overcome evil, but didn’t.
People stood by and did nothing in the holocaust because they were scared. And people did do something hence there was a war because people rose to fight the injustice. They didn't let Jews get gassed. Everyone participated? That's a wild claim to make. Most people in the world did not participate and a lot objected and acted upon that.
Oh my goodness don’t. I was not a child when I had it….
Did I say you were?
I am a wonderful person MOST of the time, not perfect like you but I am ok.
And I'm arrogant. Stop calling me perfect, I'm blushing.
I have raised two wonderful, happy and successful children, am a grandmother to two little girls, have been married over thirty years to the SAME MAN….and have a blessed life.
Great. I have a wonderful child to. This means nothing to the debate subject. And being with same man isn't an accomplishment. It's a choice.
I am the luckiest person in the world. The baby I aborted was my husbands. A pregnancy at that time would have been hard.
You aborted but have the right to tell other woman they can't? Or that they're like Hitler? That they are murderers? Come off your high horse..
Distraught about what?
Having an abortion, derp.
how can you on one hand think abortion is horrible, not a fairy lala trip….then go against what your morals tell you is wrong?
It is a horrible experience. My morals don't tell me it's wrong in all circumstances.
Abortion if you have ever seen one is horrible. Have you ever seen one? Anyone who does not see one and think it’s horrendous…Anyone who does not see one and think it’s horrendous…is cold, compassionless and EMPTY.
Abortion is horrible, I've seen many. (The nursing and midwife studies might have resulted to this being true). It's not cold, uncompassionate and empty. You yourself said it's emotionless. How can it be empty then? I'm a bad person even though I assist in saving lives during pregnancy and child birth? Do you know how many unborn and born babies lives nurses and midwifes save? And because we choose abortion to be okay you think we are heartless murderers?
What is upsetting about it? And who says the kids are young?
Of course abortion is upsetting for a child. The word 'kid' kind of dictates a young age? I thought that was common knowledge.
I told my kids when they were teenagers. It’s not selfish…its real life and it happens.
So they weren't children....
Kids see a lot of gruesome stuff on television. What makes abortion different you tell me?
Abortion of a sibling effects someone personally. Watching south park doesn't.
LOL I do not feel I called you names. I described and compared your worldview to people you obviously you have a problem with
Well I listed the names so you if you don't believe fact that is your ignorance. Of course I have problem with racism.
You are pro-abortion period, end of story. You want to deceive yourself into thinking you’re not but you are. You condone what that video I wanted you to watch…shows. That’s what you think should be legal. You do not stand up for all life
No you think I am pro abortion. I know I'm not. I am neutral if anything. I don't deceive myself into anything, you want to believe I am so you can preach. Even if I was it doesn't make my opinion wrong and yours right. I stand up for life especially those already born. I stand up for a woman's life and her choice to abort for a start.
. I am simply showing you why your worldview is not compassionate or all that good. I
No you are demeaning an opinion because it differs to yours. Because you don't like my opinion you assume I am an awful person.
You condone murder….I never called you a racist
You said I had the same opinion as Hitler and Margaret who are racist. So yes you did.
I am simply showing you why your worldview is not compassionate or all that good. I am bold, and I do state the facts in ways people feel offended. But I think down inside they are offended because what I say exposes them, gets them thinking about what they think is ok. And you think abortion is ok. And….you are judging me…
No you're not. You are trying to warp my opinion and claim I am a bad person because of it. Your opinion is not right to everyone. Just because you believe something doesn't make it the truth. You just offend people by dismissing anything they say. You haven't exposed me. My opinion is the same and your debates don't make me even think about changing it. I never judged you on the basis of your abortion opinion.
I point out what you say that are untruths
They're not untruths, you believe they are. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them wrong.
Why do you quote a book you don’t believe in?
Not once have I quoted the Bible. Perhaps say when? Didn't think you could...
You are a pro-abort and you champion abortion period….live with it accept the label take it as your own.
Again your opinion is not fact. You think I am pro-abort it doesn't make it true.
I am not however handing my posts in to be graded….so I could care less about absolute perfect spelling and punctuation. I work….I live a full life and when I get on here….I slam it out the fastest way I can. If I had to hand in an article or paper ….it would be correct.
Great, I study work and have a 8 month old. I still find it takes no more than an extra 5 minutes to type most things correctly.
You have provided however little evidence, more lies. Just like the lie about the earliest born preemie….I showed you your error. I work in this field and I know…
I haven't lied once. You constantly lie, I pointed out every lie. All my scientific evidence I have posted with my debate. I don't want to count them but anyone who is reading can and will. I work in this field idiot. Nurse/midwife mean anything to you?
This is your worldview…and explains what I said all along…why you are pro-abortion. The lack of love for your fellow man shows your true heart. I feel sorry for you actually.
It doesn't explain anything. I said I value people I just don't love them unless they are my family or friends. I can't pretend to have feelings for a stranger who means little to me. I certainly would never love you. Worldwide love is mostly a religious belief. Since I have no belief in religion I feel what I feel is right. Don't feel sorry for me I'm so happy and fulfilled with my life.
Am I preaching? What is the difference between you putting opinion and facts out and what I am doing? Do you ever look in a mirror?
Huge difference. I haven't told you your opinion on abortion is wrong. You tell me I am heartless a murderer, cold, ignorant. I accept my opinion isn't fact you can't do that. You place no actual evidence just your opinion. Your opinion is NOT fact.
You said two things in your post…………you are against abortion at the end of the second trimester which would be 24 weeks….and here you say 12 weeks it feels pain. LOL
Ever heard of reading? It will do your argument good. They feel pain at the beginning of the second trimester (around 12 weeks) and I think abortion should happen before that. Honestly, you liar, I said what about 30 times? 24 week abortions are wrong.
So is it 12 weeks when you say the fetus can feel pain….or 24 weeks when obviously it can’t. LOL
You do not even know your own position. That is why you look silly and have to swear.
Do you even know when the fetus can feel pain? LOL Naw…you don’t.
Yes it is 12-14 weeks. Like I said all along. What the hell are you talking about? I said all along abortions shouldn't be allowed at 24 weeks. I know my position. I swear because I want to. I like swearing it's as much as the human language as any other word. Yes I know when. The fetus feels pain at the beginning of the 2nd trimester, again I've said that all along.
1) And yet, half the people here were talking about how it's the woman's choice ONLY. The argument people ALWAYS make are that it's "the woman's body."
Interesting.
2) I actually can't agree with this. Rape is more iffy of course, but I don't think the child should have revenge taken out on them for being raped. The father who raped the women should suffer: not the child.
I somewhat understand that point, but I don't think it makes anything right.
I also think incest isn't much of a reason (Unless you're talking about the pedophillia related incest...) unless the women is AGAIN needing it for medical reasons. But consensual incest shouldn't equal death.
I don't condone incest, but it's a lesser evil to other things.
3) I can understand it if the baby has a deformity that WILL actually hurt them in the future.
This debate is really old and I can't find the post that you're disputing to read what you're replying to, since I have about 80 arguments in that one debate. Perhaps clarify or quote?
So a husband and wife that don't want children can never have sex.... Contraceptives fail.
So two people who don't want children can not get married - lack of sex is a slam dunk claim for divorce or annulment. You are required to fulfill your marital duties or your partner can divorce you in almost every state. In addition a healthy sex life is cited by almost all marriage councilors as vital to maintaining a healthy marriage.
So how would a childless (by choice) couple be acting irresponsibly? In addition what is the difference to you?
Either they are going to have sex and and abortion (if they get pregnant), or they are going to abstain so as not to take the risk of getting pregnant if abortion is made illegal.
Guess what - either way, no child is ever born. That couple has decided not to bring a child into this world under any circumstances. Personally I don't think they should have to go their whole lives without having sex.
They can have sex, but they must be prepared to deal with the result of it. Since when was sex the only thing that kept together a marriage? The purpose of marriage is to start a family, which includes supporting each other in BOTH good times and BAD. If you aren't trying to start a family then GTFO :)
A childless couple isn't acting irresponsibly if they are prepared to take responsibility if they have sex.
I support what you say...but I would add this....when a child is concieved...there is nothing potential about it. It is already a living human being.
And I would ask you to think about the rape and incest clause in your position.
Let me ask you this.........if you believe a human life starts at conception, how is death right for even a child of rape? If you walked into a nursery full of babies and the nurse told you that one out of the twentys mother was raped...would you be able to pick that child out? Life is life and although rape is a violent act...so is abortion. So rape is the first wrong....and then on top of that abortion is another. The woman can live with two crimes. That is the same as incest. If you are pro life that means you value ALL LIFE, not just some.
If you are pro-choice and think that abortion should be legal even though you think its gruesome and wrong.....then you are not pro-life. Being pro-life is being against abortion period...unless the woman is dying on the table...and then in most cases both can be saved.
Abortion in general is wrong in the sense of life being erased. It may be less so if it's for a valid reason like health. But I think that abortions made for more reasons than that is the result of selfishness usually...
When life becomes subjective, and a killing an option.
Since when is it acceptable for people say that because it's not 'quite human' we can just do whatever the heck we want with it?
The logic of something needing to PROVE that it has a right to live is just sick. Why is it that we get to define when it's okay to exterminate something?
Why is it okay to kill an unborn child, period? It might be understandable in some situations, but it doesn't make the choice RIGHT.
I LOVE how a person can go to jail for killing their household pets, but then it's suddenly perfectly okay to kill an unborn child because it hasn't met someone's standards of "It deserves to livee~"
I can support a person's decision on the matter when it is completely necessary, but all the people who think abortion is all right and good is just sick :/
Omgosh....what a wonderful and refreshing post. Not used to seeing ones like yours....most people here are pro-abortion and do not value all life.
What you said about killing and cruelty to pets is right on. Hollywood especially will go out of its way to bash people for this...then be first in line to support killing human beings. One answer for them to just be promiscuous.
Abortion is taking the life of a living human being. We see society up in arms about animal rights and animal abuse. Isn't abortion really the worst case of child abuse you can think of? Every abortionists task is to dismember, kill in any way possible...the living human child in the womb. Death is the only goal. The fetus might be small but nevertheless science says it is human and it is alive. What is it called when you take someones life without their permission? Isn't this murder? If you defend the womans choice to kill saying it is her choice....then should you enslave her by putting restrictions on when the killing takes place? Thus late term abortions should be legal if you are pro-abortion. When does her right to body sovereignty end?
I am all for the right of women to choose but when that choice kills another living human being that right should not exist. The living human growing inside her body is not part of her. It has its own bodily systems, its own DNA, fingerprints etc.
Murder is a legal definition. It is the unlawful killing of another human being. Thus Abortion is not Murder. Shooting a burglar is "taking someone's life without permission" however that is not murder either.
The right to bodily sovereignty should be absolute. What right is more basic that control over our own body. You have the right not have an operation, or medical care or drugs. You also have the right not to forcible donate blood, or organs, or risk your life to save another.
All pregnancy carries risks to life and health, the fetus uses the mother's blood and organs. She has a right to stop their use. Can she abort in the 9th month? No, but she should have the right to evict. She has control of HER body, not the fetuses.
It's ironic that a woman can hire someone to kill her unborn, but should she do it herself, be charged with a crime. Why is this?
The fetus was once recognized as a person in our country but after 1973 it lost its identity and was put up on the chopping block, the bullseye was placed on every unborn fetus's forehead.
You talk about bodily sovereignty....I would assume you mean the right for a woman to abort at any time during the pregnancy since she certainly keeps her own body throughout the term. This means any woman because she has sole ownership of her body can decide what to do with it, even kill in the ninth month. Am I right? Is that what you are saying?
Pregnancy is not dangerous to 99% of those doing it. Less than 1% of ALL WOMEN getting abortions do it because of health issues. And in most case both mother and baby can be saved. So most woman abort because of social issues.
Having a baby is a natural thing to do. Many women do not even go to doctors to be watched and have no problems at all. So don't make the statement that it carries risks above and beyond what pregnancy implies. How many woman die a year in childbirth compared to those who have successful pregnancies? Not many.
You are saying two things in your statement. She owns her body, but she doesn't. Can she abort in the 9th month? NO..........but she should have the right to abort. Abortion kills. If that is what she wants to do, to kill it even in the ninth month, what right do you have then based on what you have said here.....to deny her the right?
Funny that for hundreds of years abortion was considered murder. Even today if a woman kills or tries to kill her unborn she can be tried. And if someone else kills or tries, they can be prosecuted and go to prison. Scott Peterson...killed that which you say is not a person that deserved to live.
You talk about body sovereignty......then you cant ever take it away...which means you are for allowing late term abortions. You certainly would not want to enslave the woman carrying a nine month old unborn that she decided to kill at the last minute.
It is neither right nor wrong. I agree that the latest time to have an abortion should be reduced. In the UK it currently stands at 24 weeks, which is also an age a baby can survive.
I think it's dependent on the situation of the pregnancy. If the child's going to be brought up into a life of poverty, abuse and just be bloody miserable well what kind of an existence is that? I also agree when a child has severe deformities or disabilities or an instance or rape (because of religion raped children as young as 7 have had to give birth which is no life for the baby or the mother). Even discounting these things it's still a woman's choice.
At what point do you consider it to be killing a human life can I ask? Is it once an embryo has implanted or earlier (contraception)?
My main concern with anti-abortionists is that they don't consider the problem of over-populating. If no one had an abortion could you imagine all the extra people there would be populating the planet? We would be in a massive state of poverty, much more drastic than we see now.
If there is nothing wrong with abortion then how can you say abortion is wrong after 24 weeks? My neice was born at 23 weeks and last year graduated from college. Although it was a long road...she is normal, in fact she is brilliant and graduated with over a 4.4 grade point. To say...that 24 weeks is the cutoff time is wrong. But then...tell me cattiscus...is abortion wrong? And just to let you know.....without intervention no baby could survive birth without help. One who is born earlier than 40 weeks just might need additional help.
Who are you to say...that poverty would be that childs life? Look at the poor people you would have exterminated in order to save them from a life you find pathetic. There are many poor people who are happy. They say the happiest people live in poorer countries. You have no right to tell someone that they dont have a right to live. Funny your saying that....and you were born. LOL Is your life perfect?
You know Hitler had the same idea.........kill people who are undesirable....the Jew, the black the person of faith....dredges on society. Is that where you came up with the idea? Lets kill unborns because they MIGHT end up getting a divorce....lets kill them because they MIGHT be obese, they MIGHT end up being a drunk or abused, MIGHT become a criminal, MIGHT, MIGHT, MIGHT........... You would have aborted Oprah...she was born into poverty.
What makes you think that you have the right to decide for another human being whether he lives or dies?
It is a scientific fact that the sperm in a male is human, it is a fact that the eggs in a female is human.....when the sperm of a male homosapien meets the egg of a female homosapien.........starts another separate HUMAN BEING, who has its own organs, finderprints and DNA. Louise Brown the first test tube baby was NOT APART OF ANYTHING WHEN SHE WAS CONCEIVED. She began her life in a petri dish. She was a human being from conception. Could she sing the Star Spangled Banner, do times tables, drive a car? No But can a baby who is just born do any of those tasks? No
HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY, by Dr. Bradley M. Patten.
He states, "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermaozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Dr. Keith Moore's text on embryology, referring to the single-cell zygote says, "The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being. He also states, "Each of us stated life as a cell called a zygote."
Dr. Keith Moore, the Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, Penn)
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (New York : McGraw Hill) In their work on biology and obstetrics, state, “The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook “Gametogenesis to Implantation Biology of Gestation,” vol.1, ed. N.S. Assau (New York: Academic Press) refers to fertilization as “that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.”
Doctors, E.L. Potter and J.M Craig write in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers) “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
These doctors tesified before a United States Senate Committee on life.
Dr. Alfred Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania.
He said, “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development in the womb represents an incomplete human being than I would be to say that prior to the dramatic effects of puberty….is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris France. He is the doctor who discovered the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He says” after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion and not a metaphysical contention; it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
I could go on and on and on showing you proof about when life starts...but would it really matter or affect your views on abortion?
Could you just answer this one question for me. What is the goal of every abortionist?
Do you actually read anything anyone types? I said babies as young as 22 weeks have survived hence I think they need to lower the gestation period.
without intervention no baby could survive birth without help
Seriously? Woman have been giving birth on their own for thousands of years. People still do. Gone are the days in America and the UK where you would crouch down in a field and push you're little sprite out. But more and more woman are opting for a natural intervention free home birth. And that's JUST in developed countries. In poorer countries they generally just get on with it.
Who are you to say...that poverty would be that childs life?
I'm not, the mother of the child is. And if she can't feed herself let alone provide for a child and she decides to abort that's her choice and perhaps a sensible one.
You have no right to tell someone that they dont have a right to live. Funny your saying that....and you were born. LOL Is your life perfect?
When did I say no one has a right to live? You're acting like I perform abortions on a daily basis. I said it's up to a mother if she wants to abort her child, I didn't say it's up to me.
You know Hitler had the same idea.........kill people who are undesirable....the Jew, the black the person of faith....dredges on society
Are you seriously comparing me to the Nazi that is Hitler? Really? Because I support a woman's choice to abort. You mad? You seem it.
Is that where you came up with the idea? Lets kill unborns because they MIGHT end up getting a divorce....lets kill them because they MIGHT be obese, they MIGHT end up being a drunk or abused, MIGHT become a criminal, MIGHT, MIGHT, MIGHT........... You would have aborted Oprah...she was born into poverty.
Can we just make it perfectly clear that I do not control worldwide abortion. Nor am I responsible for abortion. Nor do I make a choice for anyone to abort. Why are you blaming me for every abortion a woman decides to have because I believe she has the right to that choice? You have read way too much into a small paragraph I wrote. I simply gave reasons why a woman might choose to abort and supported that. I don't remember saying "HEY YOU THERE! ABORT YOUR BABY IT MIGHT BE FAT!".
What makes you think that you have the right to decide for another human being whether he lives or dies?
What? I've never made a choice for anyone to live or die or wanted/had the right.
It is a scientific fact that the sperm in a male is human, t is a fact that the eggs in a female is human
Does that mean if someone masturbates they are aborting a human life? Does that mean when a woman menstruates she is aborting a human life? They are not human until they meet, implant and develop.
I could go on and on and on showing you proof about when life starts
Stop talking to me about conception, I've had a child I know how it works.
What is the goal of every abortionist?
To do what they feel is right for them and their unborn child.
Let me ask you a question now. I have contraceptive coil in to stop me from getting pregnant. Do you think I am aborting human life?
I am aware that your arguments were for someone else. However, I have a couple remarks about your arguments that I would like to share with you…
Who are you to say...that poverty would be that childs life? Look at the poor people you would have exterminated in order to save them from a life you find pathetic. There are many poor people who are happy.
What about the victims of rape? Should young girls risk their own lives for something they did not even consent to?
What makes you think that you have the right to decide for another human being whether he lives or dies?
Death penalty gives us the right to decide whether someone dies or lives. At war, soldiers constantly decide whether innocent enemy soldiers and civilians should live or die. So, human beings are given the right to kill others.
I could go on and on and on showing you proof about when life starts...but would it really matter or affect your views on abortion?
You did not state any proof. You only quoted doctors who agree with you.
I have one last question: Do the rights of an embryo outweigh the rights of woman?
Ok what about women who are raped? This is a violent act for sure. But are two acts of violence better than one? I think abortion is a a violent way to kill a living human being. It is not given a sedative...it is ripped, burned and dismembered while the heart beats, when it quite possibly is moving. So how is the act of rape the new living childs fault? If you walked into a nursery in a hospital and the nurse told you that one out of the ten babies theres mother was raped...do you think you could pick it out? No....it has just as much right to life as the child whose mother was not raped. The mother who was raped not only will remember the rape, but the day she...took it upon herself to kill another living person. So if you value life........you value all life and you give it a chance.
You bring up the death penalty.....I am not pro-death penalty...I do believe in prison however...and not prisons with television, internet, and work out rooms.
I did give proof some of the top doctors around the world, researchers...I mean what more do you want? Many of these doctors testified in front of the Senate on when life begins.
And your last question.....
I believe that women know when they have sex they might become pregnant, even if they take precautions. I believe that when a life is started...that that life should be allowed to be born. Nine months is not that long when you know it can save another living persons life. There is always adoption. What is nine months...compared to killing?
This is about doing what is right, not only for the woman but the life growing inside her...that she help start. I do not believe woman should have the right to kill.
You however believe that she does, because IT IS HER BODY. And that right should not be taken away or controlled by anyone else. So let me ask you this......
If the woman wanted to abort in the ninth month, eighth month this would and should be her right.....you certainly would not want her to be enslaved by a baby even in late term........right?
If someone says they are pro-choice even though they would never get one themselves...that is the same as being pro-abortion, because to the life in the womb, it makes a lot of difference how someone views THEIR LIFE.
it is imoral because it kills a person and every man is created equal also if the mother is a person who would actually be so irresponible as to have unprotected sex when she doesnt want a child then she should have to bear that punishment and should be able to eventually give her child up to adoption
Medical science says life starts at conception. How then can hiring a hit on a new human life be a good thing? I work with many people who do not have faith in God and believe that abortion is immoral...so I believe that one need not believe in God to know abortion is wrong. I happen to believe there is a God and that He is the author of life, that life is sacred. How then from both angles could abortion be a good thing?
Thats total BS, there is no current scientific evidence that points to life beginning at conception, only "christian scientists" argue this based on their own personal convictions. Btw, we live in a secular society, you may believe in your God, but not everyone does and therefore should not be dictated to live their life based on your personal definition of morality. Im an atheist and I too find abortion awful. But that shouldn't mean that my personal opinion should dictate over a woman's ownership of her own body.
No evidence? There has always been evidence, you just ignore it.
Here ya go. This lengthy but your going to get it....The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES.
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
1. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
2."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
3. "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
4."Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
5."Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
6."The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
7."Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
8."I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
9."The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
10. "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
11."Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
12."The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
13. "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
14. "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
15. "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
None of these sources mention God...or personal beliefs.
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”
Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,
I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
Modern science long ago resolved the question. We actually know when the life of a new human individual begins.
A recently published white paper, “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective,” offers a thorough discussion of the facts of human embryogenesis and early development, and its conclusion is inescapable: From a purely biological perspective, scientists can identify the point at which a human life begins. The relevant studies are legion. The biological facts are uncontested. The method of analysis applied to the data is universally accepted.
Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.
It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two. (Of course, in cases of twins and triplets physicians are caring for more than two!)
Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?
Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
Condic, a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current scientific data in human embryology. An associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.
As a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area. Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.
Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion? Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be? To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways. These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.
My mum wanted to abort me but my dad talked her out of it.
I don't think there is any way to say that it is morally right. Ending a life before it begins.
But then again humans have sex for fun, unwanted pregnancies are inevitable.
There is no way to stop this from happening and there will always be women out there whom could not raise a child very well.
I fell pregnant through a very casual encounter at the age of 18 and the kept the baby. It just didn't feel right to kill something that was depending on me for life.
I've had friends who've had abortions and I know why they did it and I would never condemn them for it, but at base, abortion is very wrong.
A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.
From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.
The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life.
"For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.
One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.
So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.
And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.
I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?
How can you even make the argument that abortion is moral? It's not, anybody who says otherwise is an idiot and I'm going to tell you why. I know a common pro-choice argument is simplify posing the question "what about in cases where the mother's life is in danger/rape/ incest etc.?" It is EXTREMELY flawed logic to look at all abortion cases through a scope that shows you only a minuscule percentage of abortion cases. Next, legality and morality are two completely different things; just because something is immoral doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal (adultery). So there is no need to bring up how making abortion illegal doesn't significantly decrease the amount of abortions.
Abortion raises many ethical issues. When is it not okay to abort a fetus? When there's a heart beat? When it's born? It makes no sense how something can be so disposable 5 minutes before birth, but valued as much as a human being after. What changed about the fetus in those 5 minutes?
If a pregnant woman is killed the assailant can be charged with double homicide. If a fetus is so worthless and just a "pile of cells", then why is it valued just as much as a human life when it is wanted? Who is the mother to decide if the same fetus has no value, or infinite value?
Is the fetus really part of the mother's body? When you see a pregnant woman, you don't say "how's your belly?", you say "how's your baby?" because the fetus is obviously different from the rest of the woman's body. Find one science textbook that labels a fetus as part of the basic female anatomy.
Abortion also raises many ethical issues. What is an acceptable reason for having an abortion? If your child is retarded? Disabled? If your child is a girl? With further advances made constantly, what if soon we can find out a fetus's sexuality in the womb? Is it okay to abort a baby because they are gay? Where do you draw the line.
"I've noticed that everybody for abortion has already been born."- Ronald Reagan
How can you even make the argument that abortion is moral?
Easily. A life of pain and torture is quite arguably worse than a swift and humane death. Forcing a baby into the world which the parents don't want will more than likely cause the child deep psychological issues, drug addiction, a lifetime of unhappiness and neglect, followed by an eventual suicide. And that's even doing you the favour of accepting your stupid notion that a fetus is the same thing as a person.
A woman, her child and a doctor are out hiking in no mans land and they have an accident (a fall lets say). The child is injured. He needs a blood transfusion and the mother and child are the same type (the doctor is not).
The doctor explains the risks to the mother - the child needs a lot of blood and he has no way to measure how much is being taken... there is a risk she will loose too much blood and die.
She agrees
He hooks her up, so she is supporting the childs life. After 10 minutes she is starting to feel lightheaded, and gets scared. She decides she doesn't want to do this anymore - she has 2 other children at home that need her.
Does she have the right to unhook herself? The child will surely die. Of course she does, it's legal, and nobody has ever tried to make it illegal. Even after agreeing, and being hooked up, she can change her mind.
So if a women gets pregnant, and the fetus is hooked up to her, why does she have to stay hooked up? At some point between her and the fetus the umbilical is part of her body. Does she not have the right to disconnect it if she feels she is not up to going through with it?
Why would a women be legally required to keep her fetus alive by allowing it access to her body, but has no legal requirement that she keep her child alive after it is born (even if there is 0 risk to her life)? A women has a right to not have her body used by someone else.
She has a right to unhook herself...but she is not slaughtering the child. The child might die might not....nature takes it course.
The fetus in the womb is not dying on its own its fine. The mother pays someone to kill it. This is totally different.
So since you are pro-abortion....I assume you are pro-abortion since you do give the woman the right it is her body.....to kill it even after nine months.
Got one for ya. The woman is in scheduled for a csection in one week. She gets scared and decides that she does not want the baby. Is perfectly acceptable for her to kill it at nine months?
The woman took the risk that she might get pregnant. If she did not want a baby she should not have had sex, or done something to prevent it like sterilization.
And for your information the baby is not part of the mother. It has its own DNA, bodily systems, heart, circulatory system, fingerprints. If the baby is part of the mother....do you think that she should be able to kill it after its born?
It's not a baby until it has sufficient brainwaves....................................................................................................................................
As a clarification and not a dispute. The Umbilical cord is produced by the child's body.... not the mothers. So, the umbilical cord is not 'part of' the mother's body like you claim.
In your hypothetical, the woman is not aware of the impending accident. If a person goes hiking, they aren't expecting of an accident to occur, or they would not have undertaken it in the first place. Pregnancy is different because it requires sex which is a decision that everyone knows may result in pregnancy. Now you may think, "Taking a hike in no man's land is also a decision that includes risk" and you'd be right. But I believe this is where the debate breaks down to individual opinion. I am of the opinion that when a person becomes a parent (by deliberate decision or otherwise) they are responsible for the safety of that new human. Even to the extent of risking their own lives. That is my definition of assuming responsibility for the risks. That being said, I don't think there should be laws in place to force people to carry thorough a pregnancy, or donate blood to their injured child. But I believe it to be immoral for a parent to favor their own safety over that of their children. Born or not.
Hiking is not dangerous really....mountain climbing on the other hand is. You take risks to do it. This is taking responsiblity for your actions...even if the risks you took backfired and became reality. And this is the case for intercourse between a man and a woman. THE RISK IS ALWAYS THERE....unless the woman or the man is sterile. If a woman has sexual intercourse with a man who was wearing protection....and that protection broke....how do you think she would feel? Anxious? Worried? If a woman who takes the pill had sex with a man...and later learned she forget to take one the day before...how would she feel? Worried? Sure she would....because mistakes happen...but that does not change the risk factor that she took. The risk was there...and human error, condom malfunctions can happen. How is that the fault of the new life they both created? It is unfortunate, but nevertheless, the life got started.
I dont think it should be individual opinion....it should be what the facts state. And it is a fact that at conception that which is living in the womb is a human being. Now its small, but that does not change its state. A little ant working hard on a hill....has all it needs to live....its small...but the workings of his bodily system works. And a fetus however small...has the same qualities...but is human. The heart starts at around twenty days...and every day grows and something develops. The issue is...does anyone have the right to kill a living human being without its concent. We have people here who are against killing animals for food, but they are pro-abortion and believe killing humans is obviously more moral. Figure that one out.
If you say they are responsible..is the responsible thing to do is kill it? How responsible is that? Do you think that two wrongs make a right?
You say there should be no laws to enslave the woman, that she should NOT be forced to carry a baby to full term. That means in your statement that you also would condone abortion in the ninth month. So don't come back and say........"ooops...now I don't mean that...only until its viable.." And gee when is viablity and what does that matter....the woman does not want it...and by your own statement should be allow to kill it whenever she wants. Anythink less as i said would enslave her and FORCE HER TO DO WHAT YOU SAY, NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO...in this case our government. How humane is your statement really? Donating blood does not kill anyone.
And in the United States we can really force people to give blood. When someone is arrested for drunk driving...most often they have to give blood. Denying it would really be an admission of guilt and the arresting officer can use it as evidence.
I don't get that you think its immoral for a parent to favor their own safety over their childs, yet believe the mother can kill her child while it is in the womb. ????????
Yours is certainly not the Republican stance thats for sure.
I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency.
Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element.
Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned.
Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot.
Thus...
If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.
I hate these For/Against debates about abortion. Abortion is NOT one sided! Both radical sides of the argument are full of idiocy! Which of course is why I have a totally neutral opinion. Abortion is totally okay up until a certain, and totally unacceptable after a certain point.
Abortion is one sided, it is either right or wrong...there can be no neutrality. It is either moral to kill the fetus or its not. Why do you sit the fence?
If a woman has the right to her body as pro-aborts maintain...then abortion should be legal until the childs natural birth....nine months. You say its unacceptable.....at a certain point. Why?
Nothing is one sided. There is good and evil, but mostly gray. There is neutrality in everything. How can you say there is no neutrality? That's naive.
I don't sit the fence, I say the radical opinions are idiotic, and it's foolish to not think they are. To say that you can kill a fetus at any stage in the pregnancy isn't right, but never allowing a women to do something specific to her own body also isn't right.
Why do I say that? Well, simple: humans cannot judge humanity with our mere senses. The fact that we can't is the reason racism and fascism and sexism exists in the first place. You can't judge humanity by yourself and neither can I. Nobody can.
But we're supposed to be beyond that sort of thing. Open-thought and technology accelerate us as a race. We're better then to take radical sides anymore.
With that said, what constitutes a human being? Most would agree that a consciousness, a soul, constitutes a human being. We can't measure a consciousness without machines, but we can still do it.
If we can only measure humanity by measuring consciousness, then that means, until a fetus has a developed brain with measurable brainwaves, it is only a mass of soulless meat.
It's a mass of meat until it exhibits brain waves for the same reason a severed arm is a mass of meat: just because it's made of human flesh and cells doesn't make it human. It has no consciousness, and therefore it has no soul.
You cannot measure it's soul without measuring it's consciousness, so you cannot presume that it has a soul before it has a consciousness, but you can presume that is has a soul during and after it has a consciousness because you can measure it's consciousness.
Therefore, abortion is moral up until the fetus develops a consciousness. Afterwards, it is a human being and cannot be aborted. If it is aborted at that point, it is murder. Before then, it's not.
To say that one radical side is right over the other is foolish. Both sides are illogical and presumptuous. Neutrality is the only logic and morality.
If there is an car accident and there are ten observers who are interviews by the police....there are ten different accounts to the story. That does not mean that there are ten ways it happened. There is only one way it happened and one truth.
The truth is the truth even if we can't see it.
What is radical about saying that abortion is wrong? It once was murder in America it was not radical back then. Does morality change? Is pedophelia wrong? Is there gray area in that?
What Hitler did...was that right or wrong...where is the gray area concerning the ovens?
Were the 9-11 radicals right in taking down and killing all those on 9-11?
You said something completely contradictory here...."To say that you can kill a fetus at any stage in the pregnancy isn't right, but never allowing a women to do something specific to her own body also isn't right."
You say its wrong....but its right. If you say the woman has the right to kill because it is her body...then you cant deny her this right throughout the entire pregnancy. Which means that you are killing way beyond the time of viability. Is the fetus less human at three months...than at nine? If you are pro-choice...then the answer to this would not make a difference.
Humans judge humanity all the time....our police, teachers, clergy, court systems, parents. We all judge. You are judging me by the statements I make.
I do not need you to tell me what is right and wrong, or anyone for that matter. I do not believe that it takes a village to raise a child. I believe we are responsible for what we say and do, that we are capable to decide for ourselves.
It is a fact that the human being in the womb is alive before the abortion...is dead after the abortion. The human is killed. It is not an animal....a rock......it is human and has all the characteristics of a human being...even at the embryonic stage. A human is a human...whether alive or dead. This Cassie Anthony murder trial....Kaylee was found in skeletal form, nevertheless they were human remains. That which is in the womb...whether at one month, or nine....is human.
You said, "If we can only measure humanity by measuring consciousness, then that means, until a fetus has a developed brain with measurable brainwaves, it is only a mass of soulless meat."
Humanity is not measured by consciousness. If so...the mentally retarded, those in comas, vegetative stages do not deserve it and can be treated like you say.... like masses of soulless meat. A hearless and barbaric statement to make.....
How do you know when a sould inhabits the body? In Christian scriptures....God controls this ..."before I formed you I knew you." For you to say when a body has a soul.....is impossible. Are you god?
And if you are a humanist....why are you even mentioning souls....?
"It's a mass of meat until it exhibits brain waves for the same reason a severed arm is a mass of meat: just because it's made of human flesh and cells doesn't make it human. It has no consciousness, and therefore it has no soul."
Mass of meat? Are you a butcher or something? LOL
To say that those who are unconscious are not human have no soul.....that is insane and not scientific at all.
Just curious what you think about these...
Abortion to purify the races. (Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood, hated blacks and targeted them through abortion. Hitler admired her.)
Abortion for profit. Women selling their fetal body parts for cash.
Abortion because something is wrong with fetus...wrong sex, hair lip...etc
Abortion to control the population.
Like I said you are all over on this. Abortion is right, no its wrong when.....and when that time is you cant pinpoint. No one could do this while the human is growing in the womb.
Do you know when they can detect measureable brain waves in the womb? Why should this matter to you?
So all of a sudden at some time (you cant pinpoint) abortion is wrong. BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID EVERY WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN HER BODY AND DECIDE FOR HERSELF?
As I said.....your comments are morally baffling...make no sense.
I said there is good and evil and mostly gray, don't mince my words. Rape is one of the few things that is unconditionally evil. But even rape has neutrality in it. Let's say you rape someone as evil as Hitler, a murderer of innocent people. Is that evil? No. Fighting evil with evil is not evil, it is neutral.
There is only one truth, yes, but my point is that you don't know what that one truth is. Human perception is the only thing we can run on because it is the only way we can see things. You can't, I can't. Therefore, you cannot make assumptions of what the truth is by putting in place of it your opinions. My abortion belief is not opinionated in any way, and that's what separates me from you.
It's a radical thing to say abortion is wrong under any circumstance because the idea that it is takes away freedom from certain people. Is taking away freedom right when people don't all share you ideas? No. And yes, there is a gray area in pedophilia you ding-dong. Have you no imagination? Here's a scenario: You are an adult, and you make great friends with a teenager; one day, you fall in love with him/her and they feel mutually back despite you being much older then them. Is that love wrong? Just because there is an age gap? Not necessarily. Not all pedophiles are evil perverts just because you think they are.
What Hitler did WAS wrong, did I dispute that it wasn't? But in fact, it was gray in some areas. Why? Because he saved Germany. He did more evil then good, but in the end, he still was some gray despite being a lot of evil.
The 9/11 bombers were wrong to, but you have to realize, they were brought up in a third world country where they had nothing, where they starved to death whilst people like American's were getting hundreds of divorces every day. Yes, they killed people, but they suffered and died for their actions. Even in those acts, there was balance, despite being mostly evil.
It's meant to be contradictory. I don't believe in either radical, I trust in the balance between the two which I explained. Why are you arguing as if I believe in both of them at the same time? I'm not pro-choice, I'm just on this side of the debate. The fact is that a fetus isn't human at a certain stage and completely human after a certain point.
Just because we judge doesn't mean we know. I know facts when I speak of my abortion ideas, but I do not know facts when I make opinions of you.
You're right, you don't need anyone to tell you right from wrong, but neither do I, because I don't have opinions about this, I know facts about this. That's what I base my morality on.
I don't care what the dictionary says. Use your own definition for a human being. What separates humans from most animals is that we have a self-aware consciousness, a soul. Some animals also do, but not all, but that doesn't mean we aren't still defined by our personality, consciousness, and soul.
Just because something is alive doesn't mean it's alive like a human. A mushroom is alive. Is is it wrong to step on a mushroom? No, it has no consciousness. A severed chicken leg has living cells (for a time after being severed), is it wrong to cook and eat it? No. It has no consciousness. What about a human finger? Is it by itself human because it has living cells (for a time)? NO. To say it is human for that reason is illogical idiocy.
Yes, humanity is measured by consciousness. You think the mentally retarded have no consciousness? They do. They feel and think and have a soul. People in commas are sleeping. For a long time. They think and feel and have a soul.
Vegetable people are not human. They brains are dead. They feel nothing, think nothing, and have no soul. Only their organs are alive and their brains have no function except to keep their life processes going. They are vegetables. Are vegetables people? No. The person they were died with their brains. So yes, vegetable people are soulless piece of meat.
I know that a soul inhabits a body when something has a consciousness. We have machines to tell this. What you do not have is a machine that can show that a soul inhabits a body before something has a consciousness.
Also, yes, I am God. I am a Pantheist. But that has nothing to do with this debate.
If humanists mention souls, then apparently I'm not a humanist. Duh.
No, I am not a butcher, but anyone can be a butcher if they want. The point is that masses of meat aren't human, dummy. Just because it's made of human cells doesn't make it human.
Just because something is unconscious doesn't mean it doesn't have a consciousness. So no, I am not being unscientific at all, nor grotesque and insane. You're insane for mincing my words together and taking everything I say in a manner that it does not mean.
Abortion to purify races isn't right if that's the intent. But the act of the abortion at a stage before consciousness isn't wrong, the intent is wrong.
Stem cell research is very beneficial for medical research. Though, killing a conscious fetus and selling it's body parts is immoral and disgusting.
That intent is wrong in some cases, but only the intent, not if the act of the abortion is before the fetus is conscious.
Once again, the intent is wrong, but the act of aborting before the fetus is conscious isn't.
I'm all over on what? Abortion is right when the fetus isn't a human. Once it's human, it's wrong. What's complicated about that? I know when a fetus is human, I can prove it. You can't prove that fetus is human before it has a consciousness.
Yes, I do, you do not need to provide a link.
No, I did not say that, I gave it as an example of one of the extreme points. I've already said 3 or 4 times that I do not agree with either extreme point, I'm just on this side out of coincidence, and now because you're zealously pro-life.
No, my comments are morally logical and make plenty of sense. What you thought my comments said by mincing the words together inside your mind is what makes no sense. What is wrong with you?
Somepeople do not agree with what is evil. We are disagreeing with abortion here. I see it as evil, you see it as a good. Where is the gray area?
And rape......in your opinion it is wrong...but what about other cultures?
And Hitler, he killed those who thought inferior and weak. Murder has always existed. But peoples opinions differ on whether the murders are warrented. There are those who think our participation in the ME wars were wrong that they served no good. Others disagree. So evil is in the eye of the beholder. So when you say fight evil with evil.....its subjective, because people might not agree which side is right and which side is wrong. Yet you say there is only one truth. How do you determine what is truth on your own? And should everyone be subjected to YOUR way of thinking?
It is not radical to say something is wrong.
And stop calling me names...you look foolish. Your example is sick. You fall in love with a child.....???? A child is a child...and it is never right to have sex with a child if you are an adult. There are laws to prevent this from happening...to keep children safe..from your way of thinking. Love can destroy people, families and communities.
You said, "Just because we judge doesn't mean we know. I know facts when I speak of my abortion ideas, but I do not know facts when I make opinions of you."
FActs about abortion? I doubt that. What facts do you know just curious.
"You're right, you don't need anyone to tell you right from wrong, but neither do I, because I don't have opinions about this, I know facts about this. That's what I base my morality on."
The fact is that which is growing in the womb is a human being. The abortionist goal is to kill that which is growing. That is a biological fact.
So if you base your morality on facts.....why are you pro-abortion? That speaks volumes about how you come up with what is moral and what is not. You yourself think you are god.......so in your mind, sex with children could be a good thing, cheating, lying and stealing could also be moral.....even child abuse.
I find it sad that in your post you defend evil. Where is the balance in that?
"Yes, humanity is measured by consciousness."
For people who live godless lives it might. For people who do not consider all human life sacred....for those who are moral relativists it might. I find it sad that you eliminate groups of people who are living but unconscious. That they lose the right to live while in this state. People who are in comas, under for surgeries...even sleeping is a form of being unconscious. So because a child is in the womb...does not mean they are not aware of what is going on especially physically. When I was pregnant I used to push in on my baby....and prode it until it moved....aware of my touch.
Your view on life is sad. Vegetable people are nothing? You are so so cold. I feel sad for you really, that your worldview IMO of course is so empty. That you would compare a living person to meat. What a cold way of putting it.
No, I see abortion as acceptable up until a certain point and evil after another point. You forgot to listen to me again. The gray area is that the overall event of abortion can be good or evil, either black or white, therefore it in itself is gray if you look at it in it's entirety.
Cultures that think it is acceptable to invariably harm the existence of an innocent human being are either going to collapse because they're psychopathic, or they're going to collapse because they are overall brainwashed into not believing that the act of rape doesn't invariably harm a human being. Stop acting like there are tons of cultures that think murder and torture and rape are right, because there aren't. Cannibalism isn't common because only psychopaths and stone age cultures commonly practice it. The same goes for rape and murder. You think murder is acceptable in a place like China or Kuwait because they have different cultures then us? It isn't. Because culture does not bypass morality. The human mind does.
Evil, in a way, is in the eye of the beholder. But harm is not. If you negatively effect the existence of a human being, you are harming it. Whether you think you are harming them or not does not change the fact that you harm them. The ability to attempt perceive this is programmed into our brains through morality. What you need to understand is that harm is infallible. It doesn't matter if Hitler's Nazis thought they were murdering evil Jewish people, because they were, in truth, harming the existence of the human race by deriving it of millions of people. Just because a group of Christians beat a person with turrets to death because they think he's possessed doesn't mean they didn't harm the existence of that human being, disabled or not. Harm is not subjective. It is a state of existence beyond the ability to perceive.
It's radical to say something is totally wrong when many things are not totally wrong depending on the circumstance.
Stop calling you names? No. You look foolish for obviously being close-minded and not even being able to understand anything I'm saying.
My example is NOT sick, you are just a neophyte with no imagination! You think it's wrong, no matter the circumstance, for a perfectly sane and conscious adult to have sex with a perfectly sane, conscious, AND consenting teenager? I said teenager, not child, and there's a difference. Does your morality really only go so far as the law does? What's the difference between a consenting adult and 17 year old having sex and a consenting adult and an 18 year old having sex? The difference is that the law says one is abhorrently wrong... which is, in fact, bullshit. Having sex with someone extremely young is wrong because the child is not consenting and/or under agreement and/or understanding the circumstance in the first place. A teenager at a certain age has the capacity for all of the same things an adult has, including love, judgment, knowledge, awareness, coordination, everything. And if the teenager is a little young and doesn't have have all these things, they have almost all of these things. Who are you to dictate that love is wrong based on law or order? Consenting, mutual love is beautiful and chaotic and knows no boundaries. Which brings me to a question for you... if a 90 year old and 60 year old fall in love, is that wrong? There's a 30 year difference, as where a 14 year old and 18 year old have only a 4 year difference. It's illegal for that 18 and 14 year old to fall in love and exercise their love, so why shouldn't the love between a 90 and 60 year old be illegal to exercise physically? Do you not see the whole in that logic? A consenting, understanding person is a consenting, understanding person regardless of age. Children are never consenting and understanding people in regards with sex. Some underage teenagers, on the other hand, are, by mathematical probability. Mutual, understanding, consenting love shouldn't be restricted by the law, and if you have any compassion, you'll have an imagination and agree with me.
Facts I know about abortion? Facts about abortion are that the fetus does not have brain waves, and therefore a consciousness, until a certain stage in the pregnancy. That's a fact. Duh. I've said that about a dozen times to you. It's funny how you've showed your obliviousness to everything I've been saying by asking for the facts I've been repeating to you over and over again.
Yes, the fact is that a fetus, after a certain point, is a human being. It has a consciousness. Before that certain point, it has no consciousness. Now, I'm going to ask this next question with my caps lock and italics on: WHAT IS YOUR PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING BEFORE IT HAS A CONSCIOUSNESS? I agree that a fetus with a consciousness is a human being. You think that it's always a human being, period. Give me proof that it is a human being, period, regardless of having a consciousness or not.
I'm not 'pro-abortion'. I have said this multiple times and my ideas are not 'pro-abortion'. Stop saying that I'm 'pro-abortion' before I decide to call you a dumb twat, you oblivious nincompoop.
Yup, I'm God. Everything is God. You're God to, you know.
No, it is a fact that under certain circumstances, sex with a teenager does not harm the teenager or adult, therefore it is not wrong. If it doesn't harm them, how is it wrong?
Cheating can be wrong because it harms the emotions of your spouse or mate, depending on their mentality. Some people don't mind open relationships because they aren't emotionally damaged by cheating. Therefore, for them, cheating is not wrong.
The same applies to lying and stealing. Example for lying: You're a Jew living in Germany. It's 1938. You look a little more German then Jewish. Nazis ask you if you and your family are Jewish. You lie and say you're not Jewish. You save your family and yourself. If you think that lie was wrong, you are a naive, brainwashed fool. Have an imagination that factors in circumstance.
Example of stealing: you're poor and starving. So is your family. A rich man leaves his car unlocked. His wallet with 1000 dollars is in the unlocked car. You steal the money and leave the wallet. You stop your family and you from starving to death long enough to get a job. If you think stealing in that case was wrong, then you apparently are so brainwashed as to not believe in the morality of Robin Hood.
Child abuse is never wrong, because it's abuse. Abuse is to harm someone for no reason. Harm is infallible. Child abuse is never right.
I do not defend evil. I defend only good. You are just a humongous idiot. In fact, YOU defend evil if you think that the Jew in 1938 shouldn't have lied, if you think the stealing man shouldn't have feed his family, and if the 18 year old with a 14 year old lover should go to jail for the rest of your life.
Do you support these things? I hope you say no.
In the case that you say yes, you are an evil piece of shit. You believe in harming people just because the law tells you to harm people. In which case, you deserve the Hell of the black and white Christianity you so believe in.
But, I don't even think YOU are brainwashed enough to say 'yes'. I'm glad you won't.
You failed to understand what I said, AGAIN. Fool. People who are unconscious still have a consciousness. When you sleep, your brain is a billion times more active then when you're awake. The same goes for comas. They have a consciousness, and therefore we KNOW that they have a soul. A fetus, on the other hand, is not 'unconscious' at every stage of the pregnancy. To be unconscious, you must have a consciousness in the first place. Until a certain point, a fetus has no consciousness, therefore it is not 'unconscious'. It has no soul. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE TO ME THAT IT HAS A SOUL WITHOUT HAVING A CONSCIOUSNESS.
Of course your baby would do that, it was the size of a melon and had awareness despite being inside you still! It was human! But you know what? It wasn't human the second it's halves came together and fertilized. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT IT HAD A SOUL WITHOUT HAVING A CONSCIOUSNESS.
No. YOU are sad. You are the saddest sad person to ever be sad. You're the coldest thing to ever exist. My mother died in a car accident at the age of 73. We kept her body alive on life support for a week and pulled the plug after coming to terms with the fact that she was dead when her brain died.
You despicable c-... No, I'll stop from saying that insult. But you are despicable. Vegetable people are masses of meat without any consciousness. They are not comatose... they are not UNCONSCIOUS. They have NO CONSCIOUSNESS WHATSOEVER. I feel sad for you, being such a fool as to think that keeping a conscious-less piece of meat alive is right. To classify a conscious-less piece of meat as a human being is correct.
How about we classify severed limbs as people to, then huh? Then people won't ever be allowed to amputate their arms if they have leprosy. Instead they'll have to die because of some illogical horseshit law that dictates that their arm may not be amputated because their arm is a human being.
I'd say screw you, but you know what... I don't need to. Your life is bound to be ruined in the long run if you are so ignorantly brainwashed as you are. A soul can only be logically measured by the presence of consciousness.
PROVE TO ME THAT A SOUL CAN EXIST IN HUMAN FLESH WITHOUT IT HAVING A CONSCIOUSNESS.
Do it!
Because if you can't, you CANNOT prove me wrong and never will!
So basically you're saying: "Let's be neutral about this issue and accomplish absolutely nothing. Taking a stand on what you believe in just causes problems no matter who you are, so it's best to just pull a Switzerland and not do anything." Not only that, but you say that neutrality is the best morality as well? So when you have kids and they hit puberty, because of your "neutrality" mentality you'll tell them to do whatever they'd like, regardless of what's smart, responsible, or sensible? Good luck making tough decisions in life, my friend.
You seem to base your argument for neutrality off of logic. You say that neutrality is logical. I disagree. In an earlier post, I made a spirited argument of why logically, abortion is wrong, because according to the laws of reason that govern this earth, every action has a consequence, and to say that just because you don't want to face that consequence does not mean you don't have to.
That's not what I said. Typical... turning my words into something they are not. How polite of you. What I said is that neutrality is logical because this world is made of almost nothing but it. If you kill a man who attacks you for no discernible reason, how good or evil is that action if he is a devoted, loving father? The fact is that there is little good and evil in the world, something that churchmouse did not seem to understand, thus my explanation of it and neutrality to her.
What you don't understand is that to be neutral isn't to not make a decision. To be neutral is to be aligned in between two extremes. Just because you are aligned in between two extremes does not mean you do not make decisions based off of your alignment. You're not thinking of neutrality, you are thinking of laziness. Or stupidity, perhaps. And for the record, you don't know how I treat my own children. How I treat them has nothing to do with abortion, nor my point on neutrality.
You are correct, you did make an argument of logic, though what you forgot to include in said argument was a wide variety of points that prove that abortion are wrong. If you are saying that abortion is wrong only because it stops people from facing the consequences of unprotected sex, then you are forgetting that there are far too many reasons for and against abortion for that to be your leading point.
Well, as far as I can tell, you haven't come up with any refutation to my argument, so why would I use anything else for my leading point? Isn't that the concept of a strong argument: one that can't be refuted (or at least, not easily refuted)? If I proclaim that destroying a fetus is murder (which I believe it is), you'll call that argument "full of idiocy." So far, you've come up with no refutations to my logic-based argument other than saying that "there are far too many reasons for and against abortion for that to be your leading point."
I'd add that it is not the "defining moral issue of the day" since it's only like 15% of the population making tons of noise about it, the same people who always make a bunch of noise about settled issues, but for some reason every rep listens to that 15%.
But why make it more confusing than it has to be? Good answer.
Where did you get the 15% stat? Could you post your source? Or did you just yank that from somewhere else...I won't mention.
The reason people don't talk about it that much is because of the nature of the subject. But politicians and womans groups....talk about and are very vocal about it.
only 19% of polled people believe "abortion is wrong no matter what"
I'm assuming at least 4% of those don't understand specific diseases that account for around 1-3% of abortions performed because the fetus is grotesquely misformed and birthing it will result in the fetus' death within minutes and potentially the mother's death if not aborted.
So yeah, 15%.
The problem is for you, most don't know about abortion, what it actually entails, why it is actually performed, in what numbers, and what women did before it was available.
Once they know these numbers; that before it was legal there were just as many abortions but instead they were performed in alleys and basements, that the vast majority that have abortions do it in the first 2-4 weeks, that the vast majority also were either raped or are having an aborition due to some medical issue, or that the women you and your ilk constantly demonize, the ones who casually decide on this course of action make up such a low percent you might as well outlaw instances of albino,
then even those answering "oh yeah whatever, I'm pro-life" would actually change to pro-choice.
So yeah, 15% and once again it's religion using a wedge issue to garner more power from idiots like youself.
Hey, more people died of starvation last year than abortion, when are you going to start sending money to Africa you asshole?
Please tell me what is "full of idiocy" about this argument.
Based on the laws of reason, you can't do any action without expecting some kind of consequence, good or bad. In this case, you can't have unprotected sex without expecting to get pregnant, and it is WRONG to believe that you shouldn't have to endure the consequences of your actions. If I murder someone, can I expect that I won't have to receive criminal punishment, simply because I don't want to face the consequences of my actions?
Pro-choice is full of idiocy because unlimited rights in every situation is, of course, ridiculous. You're right, you're supposed to be able to be punished for your actions if you do something stupid. To have the rights to avoid responsibility for every last mistake you make is an abandonment of logic.
Pro-life is full of idiocy because most of the time it is based on the notion that the second a sperm and egg meet and become a single complete cell, they become a human being with all of the same rights of a human being. That is an abandonment of logic.
Logical, truly moral balance is found on middle ground between the two extremes.
Life does begin at conception. Once a sperm and an egg meet, that entity has the potential to become a human being just like you and me. How is that an abandonment of logic?
It is life, this is true, but it is not a human being. You said yourself, it has 'potential' to be a human being, and I agree, but this alone does not make it a human being until a certain stage in the pregnancy. The abandonment of logic is to consider it more then just a potential human being.
But how can something be 1. alive, and 2. potentially a human being, without being considered a human being? It seems to me that when something possesses both of those traits, it has to be considered a human being. Just because the heart hasn't begun beating doesn't mean it's not a human being. By that logic, this is not a human being: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm22.html
Your link is the second step in my argument. I'll get to it soon.
But how...
Simple, the same reason a single sperm or a single egg cell are not human beings.
It seems to me...
Well that's how it seems to you. It seems to me that just because something is made of human cells doesn't make it human.
Just because...
Actually, depending on the stage in the pregnancy, it isn't a human being when the heart isn't beating. Then again, I believe the heart starts beating after it's become a human being during the pregnancy; I'm not exactly sure of the minuet time-frame specifics of most pregnancies.
By that logic...
You're assuming I'm totally pro-abortion, which I am not. My logic is not yet fully explained to you. Very simply, do I believe that fetus in the photo is a human being? Well, I'm fairly sure it is, but I'd need a doctor with a very expensive machine to tell me whether is it or not.
If I masterbate into a woman's vagina instead of the shower drain it's "potential life" as well. Yet the bible says "it's better to spill your seed on the belly of a prostitute than to let one drop hit the dirt"
So basically it's okay to pull out, therefore it must be okay to wear a condom, therefore it must be okay to get rid of a cluster of cells (sperm's a cluster of cells just like that virus in the woman's belly before the third trimester).
Really the only lesson your silly book teaches on this is that hiring a prostitute is healthier than jacking off all the time... which I agree with by the way. If only Christians knew the bible as well as atheists I might get along better with you idiots.
Anyway, once again this is a case of religion creating a boogie man to control the masses through fear, and everyone forgets what it was like when abortion really was illegal because crazy ass stories are easier to remember than history apparently.
The only thing making abortion illegal decreases in the entire history of mankind, is the number of women who have safe abortions. It doesn't decrease the number of abortions, just the number of safe abortions.
I gave you scientific evidence where science says that once sperm meets egg, it is another living human being. Can't you read?
The thing is.....you have not done research on this topic. You have not even looked to see what science says about this. If you did you would know you are wrong. The sperm was alive, when it met the egg which was alive.
There is no moral middle ground on this...you cant sit the fence. You are pro-abortion because you say the woman has the right to choose. And if you give her this right, then who the heck are you to tell her when she can and cant abort....because thats personally when YOU THINK, it should be saved. You wont listen to what science says about life in the beginning........you ignore it....then you bring up what science says when fetus is viable. This is not balanced thinking at all. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WOMANS RIGHTS?
Give me the link again, and if it doesn't have evidence that a newly fertilized egg has a human soul, then you're lying. Saying something is a human being based on the flesh is not scientific, meaning you're full of opinionated shit. And so is the "scientist".
I have obviously done far more research on this topic then you, since you are content with sitting on a radical belief. It doesn't matter if something is alive, that does not make it human. A mushroom is alive. Grass is alive. But we still step on mushrooms and mow our lawns.
You haven't been listening to my point from the beginning. You don't listen... listen listen listen. I know exactly what the pro-life stance on abortion is, but you know nothing about what my stance is, because you obviously have not been paying attention even slightly. That, or you're completely insane.
There is a moral middle ground for everything. I am not sitting on the fence. I am not pro-abortion because I don't believe in abortion after a certain stage in the pregnancy. Who the heck am I? No one. But a doctor can tell her when her fetus has brain waves. A doctor can tell her, therefore, when a fetus is a conscious human being. If she cannot see the logical difference between killing something that is conscious and something that is not conscious, then I would never trust her to know what the difference is between smashing a rock and killing a newborn baby. So no, it's not personally what I think even a little. It's basic logic that you seem to lack or deny out of faulty religious principle.
I am going to point this out one last time about my observations over abortion: science does not prove that a human soul beings at conception. Science does, on the other hand, prove that a consciousness emerges at a certain stage in the pregnancy. The soul is not measured by existence, it is measured by the brain, by the conscious being. To say that a human has a soul because it's flesh exists is like saying that an ant has a soul because it crawls on your kitchen floor, but that's not going to stop you from murdering it with Raid.
This is very balanced thinking. The fact that I don't believe in the mother's rights after a certain point instead of at all times means I am not one-sided, like you. If I am not one-sided, then what am I? I'm in between the two radical opinions because neither of them is balanced. Pro-choice is hypocritical and pro-life is hypocritical. Both are illogical because neither factor in circumstance. You want to know why my observations of abortion are so confusingly in between? Because I factor in circumstance and humanity. You do not.
I have not once disputed that a fetus is not alive, I have disputed that it is not human until a certain point. So, I'm going to say this one last time: you have yet to prove that a fetus is human before is has a consciousness. You dodge and you block and you spew meaningless jargon at me that has no relation to anything I'm saying. You haven't proved me wrong once; once.
Now stop spewing crap at me and explain why a fetus, logically, has a soul at every stage of the pregnancy, consciousness or not. Only when you can logically prove that a fetus has a soul before it has a consciousness that you will ever come anywhere near proving me wrong.
So far, you have said nothing that means anything towards disputing me. Maybe you're dumbfounded and not paying attention to a single word I'm saying. But I've pretty much explained it thoroughly, so if you can't get it this time, it's obvious that you're extremely slow.
If you will admit that abortion is EVER the best course of action in a given situation, the you will have to also admit that by definition, abortion is not murder. Now since the killing of an unborn fetus is sometimes legally designated as murder, we could discuss when it is appropriately termed "abortion" and when it is appropriately termed "murder"
I can jump ahead and point out that in cases of "medical necessity" most people would agree that an abortion is not immoral. Now should the determination of medical necessity be a privately or publicly made decision? ie should a government agency have the authority to review a doctor/patient assessment of medical necessity?
Perhaps I've typed enough to spur some conversation.
I can't admit that of course because I am pro-life. Even in the case of incest and rape...the child is also the victim and has the right to life even though the mother had an act of violence thrust upon her. Abortion is also a violent and cruel act. We dont even abort animals like we do our own human children.
In what circumstances do you consider abortion if any murder?
Or do you just think all cases of abortion are ok?
What do you mean medical necessity? Do you mean the less than 1% of the cases when abortion is perform to save the mothers life? In most cases both can be saved.
If there is nothing wrong with abortion....why don't people talk about it like its just any other kind of surgery? It is the most common surgery performed in America today. Do you ever hear a woman say....gee I cant have lunch with you cause I have to have an abortion that day. OR hear a discussion about abortion at the Thanksgiving table? Or a mother tell her kids....about an abortion she had? Why don't people talk openly about abortion today, especially the women getting them? If its moral....then why the stigma? IS THERE SOMETHING MORALLY WRONG WITH ABORTION?
"We don't even abort animals like we do our own human children"
As a former veterinary technician, I can tell you that you're quite mistaken. Many dogs and cats are brought into the vets office to be "spayed" in late stages of pregnancy. The pups/kits that are removed with the uterus are usually killed immediately by breaking their necks or by lethal injection. Horrific, yes it is. But beats the heck out of the alternative, having even more unwanted pets in the streets and shelters.
I don't like having to choose a side that says "abortion is right" because I don't think it is. But I do absolutely believe in the right of a woman to choose an abortion if she and her doctor believe it is the best choice for her. Sometimes an abortion is the lesser of two evils - and I don't think anyone but a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make that decision for her.
Well Hollywood goes to doors for animals.....animals are put on the endangered list, and many people put animals above humans. We are however are not animals...and abortion is barbaric.
If you believe that a woman has the right to choose......then you must allow her that choice throughout the entire pregnancy, or you enslave her because YOU DONT THINK its right at that point. At what point does she loose control of the right to decide?
If you condone abortion....you are pro-choice, not pro-life. If there were a nationwide poll and we were allowed to vote.....1/ woman can choose 2/abortion illegal with stipulations....she was dying............which one would you choose? If you choose 1, then your vote is on the abortion side. How many lives did your vote save? NONE.
If there is nothing wrong with abortion....why don't people talk about it like its just any other kind of surgery?
Your surgery opinion is stupid. I never had someone, unless I knew them on a highly personal level, talk about surgery. When was the last time someone waltzed up to you in work and said "hey, today I'm having a groin abcess drained!"
In what circumstances do you consider abortion if any murder?
This the UK abortion act.
To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.
This is my view entirely. You can't pin point exact opinions or 'when is it murder' because it always depends on circumstance. If you mean gestation I can't answer that because it's purely scientific but I personally believe once a baby is a viable living age.
Oh please....people have surgery all the time and talk about it. You are avoiding where I am taking you because your back is against the wall and you know it. No one talks about abortion because abortion is killing a living human being. That is fact. What woman wants people to know she did this?
If you value all life...the circumstances don't matter...only if the mother is dying on the table. Most people are pro-choice because they do not believe anyone should tell a woman what to do with their own bodies. Then they turn around and tell the woman she cant control it after the time they think its viable. Viability should not matter if you believe it is human and deserves the right to live.
You forget that she's from the UK. The British don't tend to randomly share such personal information with random people, whether it's kidnehy surgery or abortion. (Yes, that stereotype was satirically intended for the purpose of pointing out that her country is different then ours.)
That's hypocritical for you to say. In fact, that's contradictory. ;) If the circumstances don't matter to you, then the circumstance of the mother dying on the table shouldn't matter either. You're a big fat hypocrite. REAL pro-life people I've talked to think the mother should die.
Circumstance is the only thing that matters in anything, ever. If you value all life, then you are an idiot. If you value all human life, then you're supposed to treat them with empathic logic, the only logic of morality. People are numbers in the end. If you don't treat them like numbers and instead like individuals, more will be lost then gained. You can't just say that it's right to let the mother die because abortion is murder, because that, by definition, is incentive to murder. If you value all human life, you can't say that euthanazia is right, but letting a mother die in childbirth is euthanazia. According to your logic, you'd have to choose in between murder and murder.
And that's why circumstance is the only factor that matters.
What if a doctor like you is in that situation described above? What is he supposed to do? What he's SUPPOSED to do is abandon your false logic! It is not logic because it does not factor in the unpredictable variable that is circumstance! If you want to do the right thing, you have to think of everyone and everything as a whole, not one specific factor in the equation! You can't solve for x in an xy equation without also solving for y!
Your logic tries to solve for just x.
As you can see, that is impossible. That's why I don't agree with either radical side of this debate. If you really care about people and life, neither should you.
Oh please....quit making excuses. People dont talk about it because its an act that kills a living human being. And it does not matter where abortion happens its the same thing. Most women do not come forth with this information because of the nature of abortion. IT KILLS. Women know what it does and they don't want to be judged. That is why so many women suffer in silence over past abortions.
I am not a hypocrite...you just don't get this issue. First of all your a man...and men are really not important in this issue...unfortunately. Most laws say after you ejaculate and implant the sperm your nothing....well unless she desides to have the baby and sues wrongfully for child support. Only then are you an issue. If your wife or girfriend get pregnant by you..........you have no say even if you want your child. And you have no idea what having an abortion is like.....or what a woman might just go through, physically or emotionally.
Your opinion would be like mine if I told a NFL player how it felt to be tackled on the field.
You losing it by calling names? Is that how you interact with people.....calling them names and using profanity. Your entire worldview is pathetic...and shows humanism for what it is....and empty worldview devoid of real happiness.
And I do not believe in human euthanazia or the death penalty.
As I said what you describe does not happen that often in the case of mothers immediately in danger of dying...except a tubal pregnancy. As I said...the life of the mother would come first. The doctor would treat the woman....and still would not have to cut the unborn apart.
If I really care about people, you mean the way you dont? I love people and I help and care for people especially people who are less fortunate than I am. It is sad that all you care about is yourself...that much is obvious. What a sad way to live.
Ha ha ha, I'm not at all. You don't get it. I'm talking about her point of view in the UK. People don't talk about it because medical history is personal and the British are a different personality then us over medical information all together. You apparently aren't friends with many British people like I am. In the United States, you are correct to a small extent, but don't think it's the same way in the UK just because you want it to be. It's not.
Wow, you're a hypocrite AND a sexist. Ha ha, now things just got interesting. You're a hypocrite because what you said wasn't pro-life and it was contradictory to itself. You said 'circumstance doesn't matter unless the women is dying on the table'. That's hypocrisy. Hypocrite.
Also, why does my opinion not matter in the case of abortion? Because I don't feel what an abortion is like? That's a very sexist thing to say. You're right when it comes to dead beat fathers, but they wouldn't give an opinion in the first place. I have the right to my opinion and half of the decision over the abortion my wife may or may not receive for the same reason that my wife ALSO has the right to her opinion and half of the deicsion over the kidney donation I may or may not do! You have a problem if you think neither have those rights in that situation. In fact, you're sexist if you think I don't deserve an opinion in that situation. Sexist.
My opinion is nothing like that. How is it like that? You're saying things that have absolutely no substance... back them up. Never once have I said that I know what it's like to have an abortion or how much it feel or hurts or damages. So, what merit is this 'you have no right' argument, other then to be sexist, hm?
I called you one name in the previous comment. I called you it because you deserve to be called it. You said something that was hypocritical. So I pointed out that you are a hypocrite, because you are indeed a hypocrite. That doesn't compare to you calling me a butcher, murderer, pro-murder, illogical, humanist, pro-abortion... all of which are untrue. Making you a SUPER-hypocrite, therefore. You think I'm loosing? Really? You haven't replied to half of my big arguments because you have no counters, and so far, you have only replied with meaningless jargin that proves no point. Like now, you say my worldview is pathetic because I called you one name. How so? I called you a name that is true. It's not like I called you a cunt, which I didn't; in fact, I haven't used a single profane word to describe you.
Now, explain to me in a sensible manner why my worldview, not humanism, you namecaller, is pathetic and devoid of real happiness, without the use of senseless jargon. I believe, in relation to abortion, of a balance between two illogical and extreme beliefs. Whatever you think, I am no humanist just because you say I am, namecaller. I called you a hypocrite because you said something hypocritical. Humanism is a belief system that you assume I follow in it's entirety, which I do not. Namecaller.
You don't believe in euthanasia or the death penalty? Well, that just shows how the comment 'No circumstance matters unless she's dying' is still hypocritical. Hypocrite.
I AM NOT ARGUING IN THIS COLUMN THAT IT HAPPENS OFTEN, I AM ARGUING THAT YOU ARE NOT TRULY PRO-LIFE AND THAT THE PRO-LIFE STANCE ON ABORTION IS DISCOMPASSIONATE. Showing once again that you fail to see the real point behind my argument. Stop living in your magical world and start reading my comments. Holy crap.
Well, you're right about that, but that doesn't make your beliefs any less illogical in relation to the grand scheme of good and evil. That's what happens when you take a radical opinion. You don't think about everyone, you just think about a specific direction of people.
I don't care only about myself. How do I only care about myself, you hypocrite? That is such a malicious thing for you to say, and it is totally untrue. You know, you're only digging your hole of hypocrisy deeper and deeper. You said I was being malicious and calling you names, and yet you're saying all these untrue things about me with no evidence. I'm calling you names I only have supporting evidence for. Hypocrite. Namecaller. Troll. Meanie.
No they don't. Maybe if they had an appendix removed. But there as so many minor operations people don't talk about because it's personal. Besides I know people who have had abortions and because I know them personally they have told me about them. Perhaps it's unheard of to you because no one would admit it to such a anti-abortionist radically opinionated person such as yourself.
I can't admit that of course because I am pro-life.
Who is the authority on what pro-lifers may and may not admit?
In what circumstances do you consider abortion if any murder?
If it's murder it's murder, if it's abortion it's not murder. Situations where a life is ended for no good medical reason shouldn't be called abortions.
Or do you just think all cases of abortion are ok?
I don't think it's OK to commit murder and call it abortion.
What do you mean medical necessity?
Necessary as determined in the confidential Doctor Patient relationship.
Do you mean the less than 1% of the cases when abortion is perform to save the mothers life?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's disgusting, how often murdering a perfectly viable and healthy fetus passes for a legitimate medical procedure.
If there is nothing wrong with abortion....why don't people talk about it like its just any other kind of surgery?
Because a very young human dies, and people don't want to think about that. They want to put it out of their minds.
It is the most common surgery performed in America today
Which one is a good medical reason for abortion? Less than 1% of ALL ABORTIONS ARE DONE ON WOMEN WHO ARE DYING. In most cases the baby can be saved.
Odd...you know its taking the life of a little human being...it gives you the shivers...you dont want to think about it......BUT YOU SAY ITS NOT MORALLY WRONG. LMAO
If its not wrong and the most widely performed surgical procedure in the country...world....then why do you shiver?
Look murder and abortion are two different things. If lots of murders are happening and being mistakenly referred to as abortions, let's hear you elaborate on that. Without establishing a logical basis though, I'm afraid our discussion will go nowhere.
LYAO all you want while discussing this ugly subject
Yes, if before consciousness and to save it from agony in life.
Yes, if before consciousness.
Yes, if before consciousness.
Yes, if before consciousness.
Yes, if before consciousness.
Yes, if before consciousness.
No, because that would have to be after consciousness, unless it is fore stem cell research and before consciousness.
Yes, if before consciousness.
Yes, if before consciousness and for the affirmative reasons to 'Something wrong with it?'
... Yes, if before consciousness. Though, for that shallow reason, even I can agree it's a waste of valuable meat if the abortion is before consciousness.
There doesn't need to be a medical reason for killing an inhuman piece of meat, because it's meat. There are no morals applied to killing it. A conscious human, on the other hand...
Yes, it does give me the shivers to take a human life. But the life of meat? Not really, no. It's like fighting bacteria. It has no soul, why care about bacteria? (Not that this specific part of the response has anything to do with you addressing me.)
He thinks it's not wrong because abortion (to him) and murder and totally different. So yes, you did miss something. Again.
What is the difference between a viable fetus (and many so called viable babies die after being born after 24 weeks) at 24 weeks and a fetus at 23 weeks? Do you know for a fact that one at 23 weeks would not survive? My neice was born at 23 weeks. Most pro-aborts here would say it is fine to kill them at that gestational age.
And tell me atypican....what gives anyone the right to kill a human being at any gestational age?
Do you know much about fetal development? Take a look at this website...if you click on the date it will show you an actual 3-D picture.
Baby can show facial expressions and can hold head erect. The baby pumping over 25 quarts a day. Unbelievable. All this is happening well within the legal time a woman can abort. Tell me why this is not human.............
And tell me atypican....what gives anyone the right to kill a human being at any gestational age?
The right to kill a human being at any gestational stage doesn't exist. For MDs, the right to kill one at earlier stages is given to them by the mother.
I think they did a scientific study a while ago about when a fetus can feel pain (or when the brain was active) and used that to create a cut off point of 24 weeks (in the UK). However this has obviously been discredited after babies as young as 22 weeks have survived, yet the abortion gestation has not changed. This is clearly inhumane, and I think it should be lowered. But how you would find a ethical gestation point is beyond me.
... I just looked up miscarriage. Apparently this god character, all powerful and all knowing as he is, simply allows between 900,000 and 1 Million babies to die in the womb of 100% natural causes every single year. Jesus, God performs more abortions than every doctor on earth combined like exponentially.
That's it, I'm starting a god hates god church and protesting every miscarriage in the country. Fucking god and his free-sex laissez faire attidude toward pregnancy.
Why are you bringing religion into this. Lets debate this from a scientific point of view. Tell me what science says about it.
You always know when someone loses it... they start swearing. Why should you be taken seriously when your potty mouth speaks more than the content of what you are saying? Shows a lack of knowledge and class.
And by the way....who says God causes miscarriages? Can't they be an act of nature? You hate God/idea of God so much that you can't even control your emotions. LOL
Jesus does not perform abortions. The woman walks in on her own, hires someone to kill the living human being inside her....that is an abortion. This is not a miscarriage.
You're the one who used God to support your debate actually. So yes, if you'd like to bring God into it then everyone else will assume this is a fair topic.
Christians forever believe that God chooses when a persons life begins and ends, so yes technically God decides to end the life of millions of unborn babies, that's if you choose to believe the Bible and Christianity teachings as the divine truth.
Will you just go away and actually really people's arguments for once? I said aborting a baby at 24 weeks is inhumane as it has a chance to survive if the mother were to deliver naturally. I've also previously said the abortion gestation should be lowered from 24 weeks.
The problem you're not getting here is that I don't believe people should just go around aborting the babies all the time. I believe a negative circumstance should give the woman the choice to abort.
And what is a negative circumstance that would meet your appoval?
Is it your business why a woman aborts? My neice was born at 23 weeks.....and babies have lived a few weeks earlier than that. Do you think you could pinpoint the EXACT point in the pregnancy when the fetus is work saving? I would think since abortion kills, that you would want to be right on the money here. Or doesn't it make any difference?
It has nothing to do my with my approval. I'm using negative circumstance as an example as to why a woman might abort.
Not a few weeks earlier I do believe the youngest was 22 weeks. I'm not arguing that, which leads me to believe you DO NOT read the arguments people make! I think the latest gestation for abortion should be lowered.
Here you go Mr. Science.
Most scientists agree that pain is experienced in the cortical areas of the brain, which do not develop until the second trimester. Painful experiences result in autonomic (they occur automatically during pain) physiologic changes that can be measured. For example, when we fell pain, our bodies produce endorphins and cortisol to help deal with the pain. One study was conducted on fetuses during blood draws. This study showed elevated fetal plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin response to intrauterine needling early in the second trimester but not before.
So the first trimester is an ideal time for abortion which is when most occur anyway. It's extended mostly for medical reasons as some deformities and disabilities cannot be detected until the second trimester which is a time I will agree the woman has a right to an abortion in the second trimester. Answered now?
... wait, did you just try to bring science into an obviously poorly desguised religion debate? How dare you? Feel the wrath of whichever idiot is going to argue with you while ignoring everything you just said.
I brought science into this issue. One does not need to even mention God to know that abortion is the barbaric killing of a living human being. What don't you get?
You've not mentioned a single stat or study, just your self-righteous bullshit. There's nothing wrong with abortion before the third-trimester because it's no more alive than mold or an amoeba. And it's also none of your business. More people die of starvation or war than these clusters of cells from abortion anyway. Why don't you and your psychotic ilk try doing something about that instead of crusading against teenage mothers and rape victims. It seems a bit cowardly that with all that is wrong in the world you can only pick on little girls.
First of all it is sad that you would call talking about the life of a human being bullshit. Shows you are losing control...or did not have it from the beginning. One can disagree with something and not use profanity.
I have shown by posting here what SCIENCE SAYS ABOUT LIFE AND WHEN IT STARTS. This has nothing to do with religion. As I have said...one need not even bring God into the equation to see that abortion is wrong.
Now what I find amusing is this....You say the woman has the right that its her body and she should be able to do with it what she wants. Then you turn around in some self-righteous way...and take this away from the woman in the third trimester. LMAO
Is there something wrong with abortion iamdavidh? You must think so or your views wouldnt be like this. Do you know anything about fetal development? You want to enslave a woman to pregnancy....you want to take her right to her body away. Shame on you.
For your information....no child at birth could survive without intervention. And even children born at full term might need medical assistance. What difference does it make whether that medical assistance takes place at 22 weeks....38 weeks or when its born?
If anyone is contradictory, inhumane, compassionless, cold, empty...as far as their worldview is....its you not me. I simply want to protect human life, the human life that is defenseless against people like you who pain a bullseye on their forhead and want them dead.
You are a blamer......you whine and you put the blame places to make yourself feel good about your lack of doing anything for anyone. Why should it be my responsibility to solve the worlds problems? What about personal responsiblity? You're a Democrat aren't you? You are the psychotic one, not me. I work at crisis pregnancy centers and I work at Right to Life and with a group, Silent No More. I do my share. What do you do for mankind besides complain?
I am crusading for life and for personal responsiblity. And if you knew anything about abortion, you would see that your last comment is absurd. Why don't you go to the Guttmaucher site on abortion and educate yourself, so you don't look so silly.
I know this wasn't aimed at me but you never respond to my arguments, it's so frustrating! I give you legitimate sources and facts and instead of accepting them you just use the same lies to argue with another person!
no child at birth could survive without intervention
Like I said before anyone who believes this is stupid. How long have humans existed? It's only in the last 100 years that medicine has been greatly involved in child birth. Of course babies survive without medical intervention. It's natural to not have someone constantly shoving there fingers in you to check dilation. It's natural to give birth unaided. More and more woman now, even in developed countries are choosing not to have a child in hospital or with medical assistance. Instead they opt to give birth at home naturally and without medical intervention. People in poor countries just give birth in their bed and get on with it!
and want them dead.
I see you haven't moved on from blaming people for death. How is he responsible for all the woman in the world having an abortion. He didn't choose for them to abort they choose themselves. But at least he didn't get dubbed Hitler like you did for me.
Now would you mind responding to my many posts? I've given you the scientific facts about when a fetus can feel pain and when it's brain is active and how that stands with my views on abortion. Why won't you respond to science?
I dont particularly care what someone does with their own body if they want to kill their baby thats their problem not mine. What i do think is wrong is when a woman can get like eight abortions, just hand the chick some birth-control and send her home after the first time.
First off, I would like to remind everyone that this debate involves the morality of abortion, not the legality of abortion. Those two topics are completely different, especially since the legal system is not set up to be a perfect morality emulator.
A fetus does not have the right to life as long as it is nothing more than a product of its mother and father. When that fetus begins to respond to its environment in a way that environmentally expresses its genes to be different than that of what is found in the mother and the father, it is entitled to life. Most scientists believe this occurs in the last trimester of pregnancy, which isn't the best time to have an abortion anyways. But before the fetus begins to respond to its environment like I mentioned, it is not an individual. It has no characteristics different than what the mother and the father have or have at least passed onto it. Something that is not an individual is not entitled to those rights.
Regardless, abortion is typically always a tough decision for every woman. Many find it to not be the most moral of decisions, but it is usually found to be the right decision.
Abortion is the choice of the woman, because she has the child. It is best if at the beginning of pregnancy abortion, because that is the child is not large. Just before the birth abortion, I find it disgusting, because the child has to a large extent to be born perfect. So I think it's good as long as it is the beginning of pregnancy, but just before giving birth.
It's not our place to dictate what a woman does with her body. If you think that I am wrong, then that same woman should be able to had a part in the decision of me getting a tattoo. It's none of our business. And FYI, if the church hadn't been so anti-birth control, there would be very little use for abortion. Most abortions would of been prevented if that woman had birth control/proper sex-ed available to her. Maybe instead of blaming the women who made this choice, we should blame the group of people in this country who brought is to this point. Yah, I'm talking about you theists!
If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
Nobody has the right to another person's body. A woman has the right, for lack of a better term, evict. It is her body, she does not have to gestate for 9 months if she doesn't want to. Arguments about having sex mean you accept pregnancy are ludicrous.
Look at it this way. We don't require parents to give up their organs, or their blood, or their extra kidney, or even their bone marrow in order to save the life of their 1 year old child. If that child needed a transplant or it dies, we do not force the parents to donate. even something like Bone marrow, that will not kill them. We don't force anyone to undergo a medical procedure they don't want to.
So why would we force a woman to keep the fetus alive. It uses her kidneys, blood, lungs, etc. Pregnancy can cause health problems and complications worse than being a bone marrow donor, or even a kidney donor. Why would the law force a woman to go through pregnancy until the fetus is born, but not require the parents to keep the born child alive? Why does the fetus get special protection that a child does not?
The woman needs to choose to gestate for 9 months, and accept the risks that go with it at every stage. She has the right to change her mind if the risks become to great, or even her awareness of the risks become too great. When she becomes pregnant, she should have the right to research and evaluate the risks of carrying to term consult with her doctor and accept or reject those risks.
So then you are one of the pro-aborts who believe the woman has the right to kill all the way through the 40 weeks, right? Wow.
But the created human being is not apart of the womans body that is what you just don't get. She didnt need to get pregnant if she didn't want too either. The fact is...if you have sex if you are a woman, YOU take the chance of getting pregnant. It is her responsiblity and she is the one taking the RISK. No one else is to blame...unless a rape occurred.
Abortion is the most performed medical procedure on earth. It is not like other procedures as abortion kills. The abortionists task, goal is to make sure the human being who is alive, is dead when he/she gets through with it. Now if you don't value life then you condone it. If you do, then you don't. Louise Brown was conceived in a test tube. Other than the egg and the sperm...she did not use any organs of her mothers body.,,just a safe place to grow and mature. Pregnancy and giving birth is the most natural thing on earth. It has been going on since the beginning of time. Most pregnancies are uncomplicated and most women would do fine never even seeing a doctor during pregnancy.
A child who is alive would get all the things you say they wouldnt. No hospital on earth would deny lifesaving measures taken to save a child. Even in the cases where parents want to deny....for religious reasons, the courts usually overturn their wishes. Also in the case of death...if parents kill their child out of the womb....its murder. If she (the man is not an issue) kills it while its in the womb....it is not. So the born child gets protection, the womb child does not.
She didnt need to get pregnant if she didn't want too either
Why don't you respond to my posts? I've said this before but woman do take measures to not get pregnant by using contraception. Contraception fails. I got pregnant on the contraceptive pill which I took correctly, it happens (I didn't abort by the way, but it's just an example). Or do you consider contraception killing of a potential child too?
The fact is...if you have sex if you are a woman, YOU take the chance of getting pregnant. It is her responsiblity and she is the one taking the RISK. No one else is to blame..
Wow , you're one hell of a sexist! Why does a woman have to take sole responsibility of a pregnancy? How dare you say no one else to blame! The man is just as responsible for the action of sex and creating a life yet he wouldn't get your giant speech on the immorality or creating unwanted life. Not once in the whole discussion have you ever mentioned the males role in creating a baby just how terrible the woman is.
Louise Brown was conceived in a test tube. Other than the egg and the sperm...she did not use any organs of her mothers body
She was conceived in a test tube. She didn't spend 9 months on a petri dish growing. Her embryo was placed into a womb and relied on a woman's organs to live. Your statement is all wrong.
If she (the man is not an issue) kills it while its in the womb....it is not
The man is not the issue? Do you realize how many woman get abortions because the person who impregnated them pressured them into doing so? The men often want the woman they got pregnant to abort. He is just as responsible for creating the life as she is and if wants her to abort then he is just as responsible for the termination.
Yes contraception fails..........but that does not chance the facts. The woman knows it MIGHT fail...and chooses to do it anyway. The responsiblity is HERS.
I believe what science says...
Some people do not make a connection between birth control and abortion. You probably see them as two different acts. The fact is however that some birth control are abortifacients because they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg a new human being from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation, but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And now we have the RU-486 pill that aborts a new fetus, a new baby.
I am not a sexist....you are, your pro-choice position is sexist. You think this is just a womans issue, that the father who has DNA in the newly created human being should not have a say in the matter of whether his child is killed or not. I believe they should have a say. I would bet you dont. So who is sexist? LOL
You want the woman to have her cake and eat it too. You want the father to pay, only if SHE decides to have the child...and in that case you would go after him for child support. What rights does the father of this newly concieved child have? NONE. You give him none......I don't. The fact is....pregnancy takes place in the womans body. The man deposits the sperm.....and that is it. She allows him to do this. If you think he has and should be responsible.......THEN WHY DENY HIM THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS TO HIS CHILD? You are the sexist one, not me.
Our government tells the father.......YOU ARE NOT IMPORANT until the child is born, whether you want it or not...then get out your wallet. The woman holds ALL THE CARDS...and your giving her a pity party.
My statement is right about Louise Brown. She was concieved in a petri dish....nothing the mother or father did...helped.
It's a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person and the child is another. Being inside something is NOT the same as being part of something and ones body does not belong to another’s body merely because of proximity. Brown was no more part of her mothers body when placed there than she had been part of the Petri dish where she was concieved. A child is not part of the body in which she is carried.
In July 2000 the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. The logical reason for this decision is that a preborn child is an individual person, distinct from his mother and with his own separate right to life. As I said our laws are wishy washy.
Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence should they? I am sure you would think that premature baby lying in a hospital incubator deserves to live. Would the exact same baby deserve to live any less because she was still in her mother?
But then in your opinion....a poor baby, a handicapped baby...should be left to die...they are not worthy to live.
Your worldview is sad...........
You are a blamer........wow. No woman is dragged into an abortion clinic. I picket them...never seen one dragged in, not in ten years. No woman gets an abortion unless SHE CONSENTS. Place the blame where it belongs. It is her body she has the right to decide. There are places that would help her....I work in one.
Stop saying this the man is half responsible for pregnancy he had sex and impregnated. Pregnancy is the responsibility of two people.
You think this is just a womans issue, that the father who has DNA in the newly created human being should not have a say in the matter of whether his child is killed or not
I'm sorry I must have missed saying that men have no right to decide if his child is aborted. Oh wait that's because I didn't say that... My claims of you being sexist are because what you said is sexist. You're just trying to stipulate what I think when I have not said anything along the lines of males shouldn't be involved or have a say.
You want the father to pay, only if SHE decides to have the child...and in that case you would go after him for child support
Huh? Every woman that has a child is single and goes after the father for child support? Not that this has any relevance to abortion since the child would have to be born for a father to pay for it.
The man deposits the sperm.....and that is it. She allows him to do this
Sexist again. He allows himself to do it as much as she allows him.
THEN WHY DENY HIM THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS TO HIS CHILD
I don't deny him the right. The mother does, not once have I said this is right or correct. Stop putting words into my mouth. And they aren't always denied the right anyway. A lot of woman consult with the father before having a termination.
and your giving her a pity party
So any father who provides for his child, within a relationship or not, is simply giving their child money out of pity? Don't be so idiotic. And stop implying that all a father does is pay money he cares for the child as much as the mother. And by the way, damn right he should pay. He had sex without contraception he knew the consequences as much as the woman, he should be involved with providing financially as much the mother!
Brown was no more part of her mothers body when placed there than she had been part of the Petri dish where she was concieved. A child is not part of the body in which she is carried
Since a unborn baby relies on the mother to provide for it through the umbilical cord of course it's a part of her. The embryo didn't rely on the petri dish to nurture and nourish it.
But then in your opinion....a poor baby, a handicapped baby...should be left to die...they are not worthy to live.
I try my best to avoid getting angry but you just keep making up awful lies about me. I not once said anyone isn't worthy to live or deserves to die. I said I understand if a woman wants to have an abortion for these reasons.
You are a blamer........wow. No woman is dragged into an abortion clinic.
Who did I blame? When did I say a woman is dragged into an abortion clinic?
Look debate with me all you like but don't for one moment assume that you know everything about my opinions and thoughts. Instead of accusing me of ludicrous opinions and awful things that I have said not said perhaps ask for my view on a topic.
That's funny: she was so keen on 'evicting' when she had someone's dick up inside her C:
Arguments that say "Cause and Effect don't matter if you don't like it" are also ludicrous. The very purpose of sex IS to have children. That is fact.
I love how people like using things with no regard for the CONSEQUENCES and as soon as they are faced with the consequences they decide to take the easy way out. It's the same thing with people who abuse alcohol.
You get drunk: The result is a hangover.
That's science.
You CHOSE to get drunk.
You also CHOOSE to risk the hangover.
If you can't handle consequences, then don't act on the cause!
Abortion is right because the moral values that "pro life" advocates usually hold is that of religious sediments, most of the time disregarding whether or not abortion is helpful to society. Abortion prevents unwanted children, and or growth in areas where we most certainly wouldn't want it. Abortion increases happy family rates, and higher average level of education among families. A fetus is, for all intents and purposes, part of the women until removed from the women, and before any pro lifers try to mince those words I'll go outright and say yes it does mean I support the abortion of a child no matter the stage of development, an unwanted baby that couldn't be dealt with for whatever reason at one point weeks is no different from a unwanted baby at another. Ignorant religious people argue that such barbaric elimination of human life is evil, but I find it odd that they would object to something that would result in the immediate entry to heaven(by my knowledge Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe babies who die go straight to heaven). Why subject them to the hardships of life when they aren't wanted? I also agree with the fact that mothers should have the only say in whether or not she has an abortion( I also believe however that a man who wants an abortion but gets denied should have the right to be exempt from child support) My ideas on the subject go into extremes far beyond normal pro choice standards, but I honestly feel satisfaction in knowing I support something that is beneficial to society. And before anyone questions the lack of "morals" behind my believes just know that in our modern world, "morality" has no meaning, just different perceptions developed from our understanding of religion. Without religion there would be no such thing as "evil". I prefer to live in a world driven by logic, and to that point abortion is a logical way to better structure the family units in the world today.
And that is wrong? Atheism is a religion. Listen when I debate I rarely if ever bring up religion, I don't have too. Science is clear about when human life starts.
Although I think you are unbelievable in what your post says here...again, I think at least you have the guts to spew what you feel and stand by it. The content is well...cold, inhumane, compassionless,empty....I could go on....
I believe in the saying keep your friends close, but your enemy even closer. I want people like you close.
I believe in free speech...so I am going to address and comment on the things you say here in the most honest way possible. Your views mirror Hitler and Margaret Sangers on life so it seems. Not totally, don't know if your a racist....but on the issue of abortion and many societal factors I think your pretty close. They thought killing certain segments of the population for the good of society was right. You feel the same way...only those you want to kill are in the womb. Do you also feel that people who are already born who are handicapped, mentally challenged, poor, those under a certain IQ should be eliminated? Maybe you do I don't know. Your worldview is simply one of the coldest I have seen.
Abortion prevents unwanted children.....Well first off there is no such thing as an unwanted child. There are people that adopt children every day.
Abortion increases happy family rates....Well if you think murder and killing make you happy then, that alone says a lot about a character of someone.
Abortion tears families apart. Abortion can affect a woman mentally for the rest of her life. It can cause shame, anquish and psychological trauma not only for her but for the father, children even grandparents if they know about the abortion. Most women who have had an abortion never tell anyone because of the stigma, because they know what they have done. If you think living with abortion is easy then you have another thing coming. We will never know statistically how many women suffer because most do not get help, most do not come forward and share.
Studies show that what I am saying is true. If you would like a list of many studies would be happy to fork them over.
Where are you getting the information that abortion increases the level of education? LOL Could you site that study would love to read it.
The fact is Guttmaucher says this...which does not make sense with what you are saying.
"Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%."
" Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24%."
Now this age group would be out of high school and college, most are not even in school.
"About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children."
This group is not going to school....most likely because they have multiple children at home. And if they are going for multiple abortion using it as birth control, they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Abortion is not cheap and they obviously didn't learn by the first abortion.
" Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)."
Not the highest education group. You think by having an abortion these womens educational level will go up? LOL
Most abortion clinics are in poorer neightborhoods because it was set up that way. Sanger was a racist and she though blacks were inferior (Hitler admired her and agrees which history can attest to that)so she targeted them specifically. She talked at KKK meetings encouraging its members to target blacks. The Negro Project, Eugenic plan for Blacks....read them they will tell you all about her racism.
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people"
On the purpose of birth control she said:
"The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)"
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said.
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915)
She was about forced abortion and mass sterilization for blacks. She was an inspiration to Hitler...and obviously her views still guide PP and others like you today.
Your thinking is dangerous to society. You presume to know what is good for society...and that good has all to do with killing. Both Hitler and Sanger believed what you are saying. Look where Hitlers worldview took him.....and the others he mass murdered.
I find what you say about men and abortion commical. I am certainly praying at this point you have no children and won't. I can only imagine how they would be raised.
You say the woman should have the say.....and then you want to be excused from parenting if its your sperm that impregnated the woman and you dont want the baby. Ahhhh you poor thing....not included.
Libertarian worldview.....all about themselves, nothing about anyone else...a cold cold unliveable philiosophy of life. Liberty for your kind is slavery, killing those they think are unworthy to live. Freedom of expression for you people is the gun....pointed at someones head. No absolutes....people just doing what they want to do even if it hurts society, even if it hurts their own family.
Your views are radical and your right you dont care about anything moral...that speak to your conscience and lack of one. For you rape could be good in some circumstances....and well we know your all for killing those that you dont think deserve to live. God only knows who is in that group.
Your worldview is not logical at all in fact I find it hidiously evil and dangerous. It strips away the preciousness of life and living. What a sad world you live in. Which is why those that value life....need to keep you close.
No it's not. I view atheism is the theory that there isn't a god, and under those contexts it isn't a religion because it doesn't group in any way shape or form.
"I think at least you have the guts to spew what you feel and stand by it. The content is well...cold, inhumane, compassionless,empty....I could go on...."
Yes I dropped the fear of being open in my views no matter how extreme they are. Cold, maybe, but compassionless? No, at least not by the standard I hold myself to believing that it helps society. Empty? definitely not, my view has a defined purpose that only seems wrong by the dim standards developed by the main religions of the world.(you will hear me criticize religion whenever I see logic spawned from religion born patterns of thinking.
"I believe in the saying keep your friends close, but your enemy even closer. I want people like you close."
I respectfully agree.
"Your views mirror Hitler and Margaret Sangers on life so it seems. Not totally, don't know if your a racist....but on the issue of abortion and many societal factors I think your pretty close."
I respect Hitler's ability to have fixed the economy of Germany, yes. I don't care for the extermination of a race, no. I don't believe it's wrong to admire the positive side to a negative situation.
"They thought killing certain segments of the population for the good of society was right. You feel the same way...only those you want to kill are in the womb"
I do believe it's right(womb not the killing of functioning members of society), Im not going to play the shifty democrat here and change my positions constantly which will appall you in the coming comment most likely.
"Do you also feel that people who are already born who are handicapped, mentally challenged, poor, those under a certain IQ should be eliminated?"
Yes I do because that is a solution to quell inheritable diseases in our species that produce members that cannot add anything to society, let alone enjoy a standard of independent life(this view applies to major disabilities, I am undecided on minor diseases that produce somewhat capable members.) As of IQ, I would love to be rid of stupid people but stupidity supplies the labor of current society I guess so not much can be done there.
"Abortion prevents unwanted children.....Well first off there is no such thing as an unwanted child. There are people that adopt children every day."
And there are children that grow up in an orphanage, tormented by the fact that not only did their parents not want them ,nobody else did either. That is a foundation of an unstable mind that could result in something very bad.
"Abortion increases happy family rates....Well if you think murder and killing make you happy then, that alone says a lot about a character of someone. "
It increases happy family rates by keeping the family unit at a desired number.
"Abortion tears families apart. Abortion can affect a woman mentally for the rest of her life. It can cause shame, anquish and psychological trauma not only for her but for the father, children even grandparents if they know about the abortion. Most women who have had an abortion never tell anyone because of the stigma, because they know what they have done. If you think living with abortion is easy then you have another thing coming. We will never know statistically how many women suffer because most do not get help, most do not come forward and share"
The stigma you refer to only exists due to the unfortunate inescapable entity that is religion. And if living with an abortion is hard, then living with a child you can't take care of is harder. My evidence for that last statement being me and my mother.
"Studies show that what I am saying is true."
Not disputing what you are saying is true, just disputing the meaning and reason behind it.
"If you would like a list of many studies would be happy to fork them over"
The statistics however few I have presented are more or less citations from my private political theory professor Hollis. Wish I knew her first name but never felt the need to until years after being taught.
"Where are you getting the information that abortion increases the level of education?"
Again a loose citation but this one is more obvious. In countries with a higher reproduction rate then normal almost always live in poverty or at the very least a low standard of living. Bangladesh anyone? However, in countries with a normal or even lower then normal reproduction rate, the level of education is much higher, and that isn't by any means hard to justify.
"Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%.Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24&#xNo;w this age group would be out of high school and college, most are not even in school.About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children."
Okay? I also believe in using abortion as a birth control, although the pill seems a much better option to me.
"Abortion is not cheap and they obviously didn't learn by the first abortion"
Well repetition is the way to learn i guess.
"Not the highest education group. You think by having an abortion these womens educational level will go up?"
No I said the educational level of the family unit goes up, which is true, due to the fact that when you aren't forced to pay for the schooling of a kid you didn't want, then you have much more to get better schooling for a kid you did want.
"Most abortion clinics are in poorer neightborhoods because it was set up that way. Sanger was a racist and she though blacks were inferior (Hitler admired her and agrees which history can attest to that)so she targeted them specifically. She talked at KKK meetings encouraging its members to target blacks. The Negro Project, Eugenic plan for Blacks....read them they will tell you all about her racism. "
I don't care about her being racist. Racism is just a held view, no different then holding a preference over pulp or pulp free in your orange juice. In the field of political theory, in which I have a considerable holding, racism doesn't exist, only racial preference which actually for the sake of argument increases effectiveness among a people. Attack that if you must, but bear in mind I still have not indicated whether or not I have a preference, so don't waste too much time on it.
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said."
It is quite the negative influence when we consider the very structure of the human mind mixed with the animalistic side of our species that society strives so hard to contain, but that is a part of society not likely too change.
"She was about forced abortion and mass sterilization for blacks. She was an inspiration to Hitler...and obviously her views still guide PP and others like you today."
I am not for forced abortion or mass sterilization of blacks, I merely hold that abortions are a greatly positive thing in society and shouldn't by any means be discouraged. I don't care much about racial differences except how they pertain to statistics involving the economy. And like I said before, I may agree with some parts of a persons beliefs and not the other. Just because I may or may not agree with some similarly held beliefs of Margaret Sanger does not mean I by any means am inspired by her.
"Your thinking is dangerous to society. You presume to know what is good for society...and that good has all to do with killing. Both Hitler and Sanger believed what you are saying. Look where Hitlers worldview took him.....and the others he mass murdered."
Dangerous? No more so then religion is. At least my "danger" is in the name of logical progression of society and whether or not you see it that way is irrelevant. You seem to refer to Hitler in most of your debates, I believe Mao Zedong would be a much better example for the logic you are using, just a suggestion.
"I find what you say about men and abortion commical. I am certainly praying at this point you have no children and won't. I can only imagine how they would be raised."
I be a wonderful dad, I would let them grow their own beliefs on god and structure, those things are up to them to figure out. My duty would be protection and learning of basic functions. It is not my place in my standing to dictate how my child views thing in the world around him. If he wants to be pro life, all the power to him, as long as he(or she) truly believes in what the hold I am fine.
"You say the woman should have the say.....and then you want to be excused from parenting if its your sperm that impregnated the woman and you dont want the baby. Ahhhh you poor thing....not included."
Yes i do believe that. I don't think he should be able to back out if he decides to pay child support, but I do believe he should have a choice. That is probably the most destructive belief I have portrayed, but to win some you gotta give some, and the women won rights to chose whether or not they have an abortion.
"Libertarian worldview.....all about themselves, nothing about anyone else...a cold cold unliveable philiosophy of life. Liberty for your kind is slavery, killing those they think are unworthy to live. Freedom of expression for you people is the gun....pointed at someones head. No absolutes....people just doing what they want to do even if it hurts society, even if it hurts their own family. "
That is incorrect to the extreme but I am not here to argue my party standings. I could go on about your religion and get quite insulting, but for the sake of argument I hope you will drop your attacks on the Libertarian party and respect us for our views as I have respected you without insult(if one has slipped through the cracks I apologize, but I don't remember making an insult).
"Your views are radical and your right you dont care about anything moral...that speak to your conscience and lack of one. For you rape could be good in some circumstances....and well we know your all for killing those that you dont think deserve to live. God only knows who is in that group."
Yes they are radical, I am not going to deny that. And there is no such thing as moral or right or wrong. I think in terms such as beneficial and destructive. And god doesn't know because he doesn't exist. I may seem colder then usually imaginable, but when faced with issue such as abortion we must think about what is best for society. And I am actually quite the party animal, but here I am here to be logical and maybe have a beer when done.
"Your worldview is not logical at all in fact I find it hidiously evil and dangerous. It strips away the preciousness of life and living. What a sad world you live in. Which is why those that value life....need to keep you close."
It is logical as all my views come from a deep understanding of political theory and my understanding of what makes the human mind and what differentiates it from that of an animal(not much). No such thing as evil, said that already. And you misunderstand my intentions. In benefiting society we promote what makes us human. Progression, thinking, in making society a better place we make the world a better place. And my world is sad by no means.I seek only to progress my knowledge and thoughts of world issues. I thank you for having the courtesy of making a quite lengthy response.
Such a small and lacking response makes me regret complimenting your previous one.
"So if one of your children got a disease...or became handicapped.....would you hire the killing done or would you do it yourself?"
If it was detected during pregnancy yes I would definitely want an abortion but once it has been born it has entered the realm of society where my line is drawn. You make me out to be some serial killer yet you don't expound on how the reason behind it is flawed, you only call me evil and insult my beliefs and party.
"You said society would be better without people such as this...I assume you meant your family as well. Right?"
Yes if a defect is detected during pregnancy. Now I am not saying they have to, I am saying that if it was up to me I would choose an abortion, and if you believe that is wrong due to your close minded perception of morality, then that is of no consequence to me. You are trying to run a perceptive analytical argument and it is frustrating me because my source of these views is based on that of a separate pattern of thinking, I am coming from a place of thought and logic, you are coming form a place born from what you perceive to be "right" or "moral" when in fact you have little to no understanding of the impacts such thinking has had on society and yet you call me a danger. If you think my views on abortion are somewhat cruel, Im sure my views on religion would surprise you even more.
You make several erroneous Assertions in your post.
Atheism is not a religion. It is the rejection of religion. It requires no active belief. If there were no theists there would be no atheists - we'd all just be people. Atheist is a rejection of Theism. Much like no believing in unicorns or leprechauns or anything else people claim exists but can't prove exists. Not believing in something is not a religion or else we all belong to hundreds of religions.
Abortion does prevent unwanted children. There are 1.25 Million abortions performed in the US every year. Currently there are less than 200.000 families trying to adopt. You do the math. We'd vastly outstrip the adoptive parents in the first year alone.
Women ages 20-24 are not out of high school adn college. a 4 year degree means you graduate when you are 22, some may never go but some also get higher degrees or go part time, or take a year off - so many 20-24 year olds are not out of college.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said."
In this instance the inmate argued that atheism was a religion SOLELY for the purpose of being allowed to start his study group.
"The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Establishment =something established; a constituted order or system.
Therefor, by actually forcing atheism to be considered a religion is in violation of the law because it institutes that a study group for religion is allowed more so then a separate kind of study group. Not to mention that atheism has always been a kink in the census system. Harder then you think to put atheism into that "other" category.
Religion=a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
Atheism is not a set of beliefs. Atheism is not a practice. Atheism Is not a religion.
Atheist=a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
By your logic, believing in ghosts is a religion.
So by all accounts, this is a mistake by the Supreme Court that will undoubtedly be fixed in the foreseeable future. Also, the supreme court does not have the right to categorize any believe except in legal matters, so they can say that agnosticism is a religion but that REALLY isn't true.
Like it or not our country has taken a stance and the SCOTUS has taken a stand. Atheism is a religion. It is a faith believed without fact but opinion regarding god like other religions. Atheists ban together, they organize and they spread thier worldview.
Atheism is a religion in the United States. It has been ruled that way, by the hightest court in the land. That is fact.
Actually: I came up with my opinions of Abortion without the help of religion. I researched the topic independently, and tried to learn every angle that I could from BOTH sides. I'm pro-life in the definition of I think that every person should have equal opportunity to live, and that people should give the life as much chance to live as possible.
I think abortions that are NOT based on betterment for the woman or baby's health is wrong.
Why should eliminating someone's chance at life be an option just because it's CONVENIENT for the woman?
I care about all people in general having the chance to life their life to the fullest.
Not what people in the Bible said about it.
And abortion only prevents a child from being a 'bother' to their parents (unless it's for medical reasons). The parents decided to have sex knowing FULL WELL that they had the risk of having a child. But once they are met with the result of sex they want to bail out because they don't want to be inconvenienced with something THEY MADE.
If people are going to choose to do something, they need to take responsibility for their actions.
"Why should eliminating someone's chance at life be an option just because it's CONVENIENT for the woman?"
Because it's part of the woman until birth.
"If people are going to choose to do something, they need to take responsibility for their actions."
You are not one to judge what is the correct way of taking responsibility.
I'd argue more but you don't go anywhere beyond the whole "life deserves a chance" stance. You say you read into both sides but I don't believe that as I see no reference to the societal benefits of abortion in your response.
You did not answer my question libertarian, and I don't blame you.
Would you condone the killing of your own family your own children should they become handicapped or mentally challeneged. You said killing this segment of the population was warrented. Just wondered if that included your own flesh and blood?
"So let me get this straight for the record Mr. Cant Debate without a Potty Mouth"
Potty Mouth? Really? And did you seriously just respond to 1 post when there are at least 5 others?
"Your daughter was in a car accident and became handicapped. You would kill her?
Your son had a stroke.....you would kill him?"
If you go back to my posts(although you have proven to ignore most of my comments so I doubt you will) you will see that I am for the elimination of genetic disorders. Not a damn car crash. Strokes are a common thing. You have obviously NOT paid attention to anything said here, you are a wonderful testimate to the idiocy of the religious ones. You say you looked into the scientific aspects, but nothing is more obvious than your lack of the BASIC logic used in disproving religion. I will post a link in the hopes it will jump start your search into ACTUAL science.
Until you actually have an understanding of the shit you constantly try to use, don't try. You have not the slightest understanding of communism even though you think you can effectively use it in an argument, you are single minded in all senses of the phrase, you are hypocritical, you are ignorant. The narrow mindedness that you portray is what keeps the worlds problems constant. You mince my ideologies and claim they are wrong, without giving any thought to the means of them. You are, for all regards, a dumb ass. Catticus tells me that you are a female, if that is true I'd be happy to to refer you to an abortion doctor, the last thing this planet needs is your idiocy passed on. I'd love to see what you attack of this, if you attack it at all. You can't say I am not making arguments, I have several pages worth of argument with you, only to be disappointed by your idiotic counters and comments.
Killing is wrong. But, sometimes there are exceptions that are severe in nature. What if it means passing on a disease? Or if the mother's life is in danger. Abortion must be given an exception in certain cases though not all. Especially the reckless one's!
What I define as moral is what I have learnt is correct and righteous from the World. Certain things require to be excused. There cannot be just an ending. There always is a story. An abortion done for reasons cuz you made out with out protection is Bizzare. But,sometimes abortion is a requirement. My Best Friend's neighbour had an abortion. That abortion was needed cuz not only was she physically unfit but also mentally imbalanced. If they let the baby grow in her, she would probably harm the baby before he met the World. I'm not trying to side anyone's reason. I'm just saying that the World has to work in accordance with the right amount. You cannot just make plain judgments as being in a society where you can place yourself in a million situations where a better choice could have made a huge difference, instead of just opting for a solution that seemed to you had no other choice.
But you are siding with the side that is pro-abortion. The child in the womb is never at fault, never deserves to be dismembered alive. It does not matter what excuse you can come up with...the unborn does not deserve it. But people like you side against life for reasons that YOU THINK are good enough for it to be killed.
You advocate death for the child of the mother who is mentally imbalanced. You said she might damage her baby should she be allowed to continue the pregnancy. You care more about the "what if's" than what actually might happen. What do you think abortion is? Why not take the chance that she might not harm the baby? You want to kill it by abortion anyway...this is a violent act.
What difference does it make whether she harms it or someone is hired to kill it? It dies in both scenarios?
A woman does have a choice. Allow the unborn a chance at life by doing what is right, or kill it and be responsible for ending anothers life because of selfish reasons, which is morally wrong.
Yes. I'm siding with abortion cuz it is never just Yes or NO. A lot of wrong things happen. But, they happen for the right reasons. To you killing a baby is all that is visible. I do not say your wrong. I cannot tell you are right either. What kinda solution do you come with if going further is dangerous and not to is equally dangerous.
I'm not going to say that there is never a choice. There always is a choice. Look... Sometimes, giving birth to a baby is risky. It might mean the mother's life too...
What difference does it make whether she harms it or someone is hired to kill it? It dies in both scenarios?
Yeah.. Give birth to it then, when it can fully understand the meaning of pain and let it die. While you could have saved it all the pain. All that torture. Like... We had a nuclear tragedy in India. The birth effects are just preposterous. Kids died when they reached the age of 1 or 2. The mothers were denied of abortions, not by the hospitals but the family members. Some of the women weren't healthy enough for the birth process and hence they died. Even today Women are forced despite their health conditions.
I do not say it is right. But, it is never just a Yes or a No. There are always issues. There must be exceptions. To certain things. Certain 'unavoidable' things.
I agree with everything that you mention. It isn't wrong. But, I only mean to emphasis on those few things that stand importance too.
it is a yes or no. Its yes, I am prolife and believe the unborn has a right to live....or no I do not value all life and believe women should always have the right to kill. Less than 1 percent of ALL ABORTIONS are done for actual medical reasons.
SAved it all the pain? How do you know it cant feel pain? Abortion is legal dismemberment of a human being WHILE IT IS ALIVE. Now if this is not child abuse I don't know what is.
The issue is whether or not the unborn deserves personhood, whether or not women have the right to kill on demand for any reason.
Less than 1 percent of ALL ABORTIONS are done for actual medical reasons.
Hence, do not just tad a process completely wrong saving some regret. Certain decisions are hard to make but important. The reasons are wrong, the outcome is most definitely wrong. If the reasons are unavoidable, there has to be no guilt.
How do you know it cant feel pain?
We don't have to wait to know if it can feel pain and then end it.
whether or not women have the right to kill on demand for any reason.
What's important is that the reason shouldn't be bizarre. The right comes only in conditions.
And who decides whether it lives or dies? Who has the right to do this?
So when is that, exactly when it feels pain? Even if it does not feel pain, does not change the fact that what you are killing is a living human being.
that what you are killing is a living human being.
Not at the stake of another Human Being who already has responsibilities. And whose pain is worse and shared bigger. You kill someone in the womb is cruel. When you do not kill someone in the womb when required is also cruel.
..and you think its ok to just kill it for no reason.
I think you should go back and see if I said it is okay to kill a bay in the womb for no reason. Just to have fun or if killing someone makes you happy. Did I tell that anywhere? No..
Could you make a list....?
The fetus is poisoned.
The pregnancy goes wrong.
Either the mother or the baby can be saved.
99% are for social reasons,
I wasn't here to defend myself, but I told you I'm not 'for' such abortions. They must be stopped.
It is sad that you do not value the life in the womb.
I'll tell you what is sadder. It is sad that you do not wanna see the other side of the possibilities. Why abortions are sometimes important. You might believe just right out that I have no value for life in the womb. I don't think you can just say that cuz you call yourself pro-life. Value must exist. For life inside the womb and outside.
I've been telling you constantly that I'm just trying to explain that I do agree with some of your thoughts, just not all. There must be exceptions. Not easy, but essential one's. You cannot tighten the rules so hard that the humanity you are fighting for has no easy solution.
And how would the fetus be poisoned? You mean the mother did drugs or something?
And the pregnancy you said could go wrong? How...as I said, less than 1% of all abortions happen because of danger to mother or baby.
You say abortion should be stopped? How? And what reasons is ok to kill?
Why are abortions important? To the unborn killed? Or to the woman who is killing for social reasons?
The solution for woman today....is abortion which most use as one method of birth control. Most women do not have just one abortion...but two and three. So they are killing multiple times. The humanity I am fighting for are the 99% of unborns killed for social reasons.
You make out one night and then get pregnant and then you do an abortion. That is wrong.
You kill a baby cuz your unhappy with it's sex kind.
You kill a baby cuz you are not ready for one.
You kill a baby cuz you were raped and that baby is unwanted. I'm sure you don't reckon or enjoy it's birth. But, that gives no one a right to kill a baby.
I believe that abortions are a strict no until really required.
If the mom is incapable of the birth process or is too weak or may communicate a murderous disease or until your life is at the stake.
I'm glad that you are fighting for the right of the 99% of the unborn. I appreciate the fact that there a certain few who are involved. You fight for those who are killed for social reasons. But, I'm trying to explain that there is no need to be so cross about this process. At a level, the strictness must be loosened and all the guilt saved. There must be exceptions. Valid exceptions.
I see what you are saying. The only exception I see for abortion is if the mothers life is in danger which is less than 1% of all cases... I see that you are really prolife and that is a good thing, I am so glad. Thumbs up to you.
