Abortion

Originally posted by Makedde
The biggest misconception people have about pro lifers is they think we are against all abortion, no matter what the reason. Not true. I can't say I am pro choice, because I don't agree with abortion in every circumstance. I can't say I am pro life, because I am not against all abortion. So, you could say that I am perhaps pro choice, within reason. Would that make you and AC stop calling me a hypocrite? Many of my pro life friends are not against all abortion. They believe all abortion is wrong, but they still support it, depending on the reason for it.

You actually appear to be on the same side as some of us. You're just confused about some things.

Originally posted by Makedde
Well, I have always seen myself as pro life because I do believe that all abortion is wrong, just that in some instances, I can understand why the woman would want, and need, to have one.

No you don't. You've said many times that you believe abortion to save the life or in the case of rape, is ok.

You're not pro-life and your certainly racking up hypocrite points.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No you don't. You've said many times that you believe abortion to save the life or in the case of rape, is ok.

You're not pro-life and your certainly racking up hypocrite points.

-AC

I am certainly not pro choice eithor.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you even know what you're talking about?

-AC

I am sure of my beliefs, that's all I can say.

I don't judge people who do it.

BUT when you look at it, it's just plain murder.

Originally posted by Da preacher
I don't judge people who do it.

BUT when you look at it, it's just plain murder.

But, as AC has already pointed out, it isn't murder (bugger it) because it is legal.

Murder is taking away someone's life which is actually a definition of abortion. It's just killing a child for the mistakes of its parents.

Originally posted by Makedde
I am certainly not pro choice eithor.

You sound like a pro choicer in denial. It's ok to accept your pro choice...ness. It's a natural feeling. Don't hide it from yourself.

Originally posted by Da preacher
Murder is taking away someone's life which is actually a definition of abortion. It's just killing a child for the mistakes of its parents.

Originally posted by Da preacher
Murder is taking away someone's life which is actually a definition of abortion. It's just killing a child for the mistakes of its parents.

No, killing is taking away someones life. Get your definitions straight.

"She does actually have the right to terminate it, unless you're speaking from that socially moral point of view."

Only in some countries. Once again, you are showing a very narrow view.

This thread is not about the law of any one country, it is about the morality of the act itserlf, upon which the laws get based, in many different ways in many different places.

-

"Both cases: YOU do what is right for you. Don't like abortions? Stay away from the clinics. Nobody is going to force you to have one.

No, because as I keep having to remind you, if it is the second case then it is morally equivalent to murder, and at that point the idea that you could choose to do that is no longer a defence.

-

"It will always come down to what each person thinks is right and what each person thinks is not right, unless you are intent on applying that majority accepted moral code to every human being ever, which is just dumb."

Crap. On that basis, there would be no laws at all. You have to accept that morality DOES get inflicted on people, and that process is called law. A heck of a lot of laws do not agree with you, and only in the most oppressive and evil regimes- like China- do they fully agree with you, up to the point of allowing 8 month partial birth abortions. You can go to jail for a long time for trying to do that in the UK.

-

"You seem to be of the belief that if it's proven to be a human at any point (And courts do consider it so, in some cases) then nobody can realistically want an abortion. Which is silly."

No I am not. I am saying it would be morally wrong to have one. Just in thr same way that plenty of people want to commit murder. They want it, but it is wrong to.

If the stage at which a foetus is actually now a 'human' life ever is established, expect to see aboritons become totally illegal after that point for any reason at all- I will remind you, that is the criteria upon which nearly all abortion laws are based, except they are simply guessing at what point that is.

I would also point out that no attempt was ever made in the UK to make abortion on demand legal; it came about by accident.

-

"Which is exactly why abortions shouldn't be banned, because then it forces women to birth offspring that were conceived out of rape, for crying out loud."

It is possible that that is the lesser of two evils. If the baby had already been born, you wouldn't kill it; once more, I point out that the Pro-Life argument is that these two acts have moral equivalence.

-

"I did say this earlier in the thread and you came in with: "I maintain that it's ridiculous to claim you can't be for one type of killing and against another." When I said "You're either for abortion or against it.""

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said at all. Try and read more carefully and stop subjecting everything said in here to your ridiculous and immature bias, as you always do.

-

Meanwhile, I'll just repeat that everyone trying to deny that murder is also a moral term is being an idiot.

Originally posted by Da preacher
Murder is taking away someone's life which is actually a definition of abortion. It's just killing a child for the mistakes of its parents.

and with out abortion what would the world b like? the wold would be worse off in Global warming and more deaths would occure form over populating the planet. poor and rich would have larger walls between them as things fall in decline and less jobs their will be to suport the people.

That logic is broken; it's like sayting it is ok to slaughter unproductive people in order combat the overpopulation problem- or to not bother combating infectious disease for the same reason

If it is established that a foetus has a right to live- as is the law in Ireland, for example- then saying it is good that abortion keeps the numbers down is equivalent to saying that genocide is good for the same reason.

Also, nowhere does any reasonable scientific or legal body try and define 'life' as having anything to do with the way you breathe or are fed. To do so is plainly idiotic; a human life is going to be a matter of brain activity/development (and/or a soul, if the religious angle is added); nothing to do with sustenance at all.

Which is why it makes absolutely no sense to say that life only begins at birth. It has clearly begun before that point- a baby by the time of birth has a functioning brain and even memories.

Which is why virtually no legal systems allow abortions at such a late point. And as I keep reminding people- but people are just too wrapped up in their unexamined and lazy beliefs to concentrate on- laws try and makew the cut off point the point at which a foetus is viable. The criteria is meant to be that if the foetus could now be born and expect to survive, it is illegal to abort. Already in the UK, abortion limits were changed from 28 toi 24 weeks on the grounds of technology making an earlier foetus viable. That is now becoming earlier and earlier.

Don't you get it? Almost NO-ONE agrees with you guys that just because it is in the womb, it is ok to kill it. Legal systems do NOT think like that. They try and define the point at which it is viable- i.e. the point at which it has become a proper human life.

How you people can be so out of step with how the world works is beyond me. My arguments are based entirely on reality, not your ill-thought out pieces of spurious garbage. We have a situation where the law is trying to fix the point were abortion is moral based on when a foetus becomes a human life, and my entire input into this thread has been based on the idea that we have no actual idea what that point is. We are just guessing. By their own logic, therefore, the laws are in huge danger of being immoral. It is a worry, and it must be sorted.

The grounds that you guys seem to THINK abortions work on, have nothing to do with reality at all.

Meanwhile, Ireland's anti-abortion law was put into its constitution by referendum; other such laws may very well be highly popular as this angle is examined by intelligent and reasonable people in intelligent and reasonable ways- very much unlike the way that this thread has looked at it. Those in favour of abortion who have not actually put much brainpower into considering the issue run the risk of future generations damning them as some of the most immoral ever seen.

no cause genocide is the destruction of the races... if abortion led to the destruction of the races (Which thats imposible) then the world would have ended a long time ago... and besides say you were a teenage girl and you were prgnant and were think of an abortion and if you didnt you would die in labor and the baby was fine? what would you do? your still young wouldnt you wasnt to sacrifice the child to live or sacrifice one for the well being of an orphanded child? Or what bout all the teenage girls that have things to do and wont beable to care properly for their child? wouldnt it be bad anough to send it up for adotion? ii know many people that are adopted and they dont like it very much

(gerr you changed yours...oh well to lazy to change mine...lol)

and yet RELIGON OF GOD dont halp out a situation if religon stayed out of GOVERNMENT their wouldnt be suach a problem!!! theat the main reason i hate REPUBLICANS cause they dag in things that have no right to be part og the government and thats religon... thats why democrats say its a chioce because no EVERYONE is the same religon and i find it stupid that one ONE religon gets a big say on somthing thats realy non of its busness... its basicaly a way to spread the church over everyone even though they arnt of the religon.

I didn't say it was the same thing as genocide, I said the two were morally equivalent. You say abortion can be justified on the grounds of population control? I was saying that if foetuses are proper human lives, then by that same logic genocide could be justified also. Or just any form of mass murder, if you prefer.

Virtually no-one actually KNOWS that a labour is going to kill them; it tends to be spontaneous. But the legal situation nearly always is that the danger to the woman's life is one of the few reasons that an abortion is allowed even if the foetus IS alive; it would be no more moral to allow the baby to live and kill the mother. It would be a horrendous situation, though.

Again, all this talk about what will happen to the babies if born into an unpleasant situation is irrelevant. Once more, you wouldn't kill them if already born; the Pro-Life argument contends that before birth or after birth makes no difference.

A religion is simply a factor of belief. Until you can provide hard evidence of when life definitely begins (this evidence does not exist) then their beliefs are about as good a basis to judge on as any. You cannot simply say you are right anf they are wrong about such a thing.

it is if it leads to corupting govenment why eles have their been spleaiting of church and state? to get it out from controling everything.. this is why i dont like amy people cause they are almost ALWAYS christan or chatholic... its always bad anough when they start trying to go after books but abortion is a right for a woman its her body she can what ever she wants with it. and what other says other wise they are going against her American right based on the ammendments to the constitution.

If you want to talk about separation of powers, use another thread for it. I was simply pointing out that people's opinions are based on their beliefs, and you can't actually provide a good reason to strike down the belief in this particular case- much as I wish you could. A decent scientific answer to this issue would be very welcome.

And once more... the Pro-Life argument is that it is NOT just her body, it is someone else's as well, and that other person has rights also, including the right to live.

And? they dont truley have a say in the matter now do they? 😆 I think every should just let people do what ever they want by choice not by law... it breaks the principal of fredom. If they are super christaind that are against it hen fine with them they can go get pregnant and keep it for all i care. but those who get pregnent by accident or dont want a baby then i say there should be nothing held against them... because inreality ALL laws get broken by risk takers and doctors may illigaly still perform abbortions under other practions...

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Also, nowhere does any reasonable scientific or legal body try and define 'life' as having anything to do with the way you breathe or are fed. To do so is plainly idiotic; a human life is going to be a matter of brain activity/development (and/or a soul, if the religious angle is added); nothing to do with sustenance at all.

Not in terms of abortion, but the (reasonable) UK murder laws actually do put emphasis upon 'the way you breathe'.

Lest we get our jacket caught in that revolving door again.

What, so you are advocating that if a human is rendered unable to speak in his/her own defence they are fair game for killing? I think the Nazis agree with you there, but not many others.

You do not allow immoral acts by law on grounds of choice. Murder is illegal, choice or otherwise, and by the same reasoning, pro-life says abortion should be (or should stay so).

You have to wrap yopur head around this logic. They think it is a human life with all the rights of a human.

Not allowing the law on the grounds of underground trade is dumb as wlel. You don't make something wrong perfetly legal just because you cannot fight it. Most rapes go unstopped as well, shall we make that legal now?