Abortion

Originally posted by Fallen
so i have a question for pro-life supporters.

i assume that most people who are against abortion believe that potential human life equates to an actual human life because the fetus has the possibility of obtaining such an existence given that it is allowed to fully develop. if that is so, why is it morally acceptable (to a large degree of pro-life advocates) for a woman to have an abortion if the organism developing inside her was a result of rape or incest? if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?

lol, not a trap.

Mormons believe that even then, a lady should keep the baby, but they won't get into trouble for aborting. In the case of incest, the couple will get into trouble for violating both nature (by the law) and probably get into trouble by the church. If the baby is fine....same as rule 1.

Take THAT. HA!

and you thought you had me....

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, not a trap.

Mormons believe that even then, a lady should keep the baby, but they won't get into trouble for aborting. In the case of incest, the couple will get into trouble for violating both nature (by the law) and probably get into trouble by the church. If the baby is fine....same as rule 1.

Take THAT. HA!

and you thought you had me....

You are obviously not one of the pro-lifers she talked about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are obviously not one of the pro-lifers she talked about.

Yes, I was the droids she was looking for.

Mormons are known for their being ridiculously against abortion and gay marriage.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I was the droids she was looking for.

Mormons are known for their being ridiculously against abortion and gay marriage.

But she is specifically referring to people who think abortion should never be allowed, but in the case of rape, incest and mental deficency. Are you one of those?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But she is specifically referring to people who think abortion should never be allowed, but in the case of rape, incest and mental deficency. Are you one of those?

Uh, no...because it's impossible to believe that.

And I don't think you've represented her argument very well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh, no...because it's impossible to believe that.

And I don't think you've represented her argument very well.

Yeah, disregard the word "never". But I think that was her point, what do you think her point was.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, disregard the word "never". But I think that was her point, what do you think her point was.

Cool

and her point was ...

Originally posted by Fallen
so i have a question for pro-life supporters.

i assume that most people who are against abortion believe that potential human life equates to an actual human life because the fetus has the possibility of obtaining such an existence given that it is allowed to fully develop. if that is so, why is it morally acceptable (to a large degree of pro-life advocates) for a woman to have an abortion if the organism developing inside her was a result of rape or incest? if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?

i fail to see the logic in why some christian doctrines accept this moral rationale when they argue that "life is a gift from god." so what if the "child" was consummated under conditions classified as a sin? the "child" itself is innocent. after all, by their very definition, the fetus is still a human being. why condemn it for something it had no control of? pro-life supporters argue, "its not the child's fault the parents were not being sexually responsible." well, its certainly not the "child's" fault it was created because its mother had sex with a relative or that the mother was raped. what makes this "child's" life less valuable? why is it permissible to abort this "child"?

i ask the same for a defective fetus. why does it matter if the "child" will be born with abnormalities? the fetus is still considered a human life, right?

I win?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool

and her point was ...

I win?

Originally posted by Fallen
so i have a question for pro-life supporters.

i assume that most people who are against abortion believe that potential human life equates to an actual human life because the fetus has the possibility of obtaining such an existence given that it is allowed to fully develop. if that is so, why is it morally acceptable (to a large degree of pro-life advocates) for a woman to have an abortion if the organism developing inside her was a result of rape or incest? if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?

i fail to see the logic in why some christian doctrines accept this moral rationale when they argue that "life is a gift from god." so what if the "child" was consummated under conditions classified as a sin? the "child" itself is innocent. after all, by their very definition, the fetus is still a human being. why condemn it for something it had no control of? pro-life supporters argue, "its not the child's fault the parents were not being sexually responsible." well, its certainly not the "child's" fault it was created because its mother had sex with a relative or that the mother was raped. what makes this "child's" life less valuable? why is it permissible to abort this "child"?

i ask the same for a defective fetus. why does it matter if the "child" will be born with abnormalities? the fetus is still considered a human life, right?

I think the red parts are her important points, the rest is just blah-blah-elaboration.

Do you disagree? If so, what do you think is her major point.

Originally posted by Fallen
so i have a question for pro-life supporters.

i assume that most people who are against abortion believe that potential human life equates to an actual human life because the fetus has the possibility of obtaining such an existence given that it is allowed to fully develop. if that is so, why is it morally acceptable (to a large degree of pro-life advocates) for a woman to have an abortion if the organism developing inside her was a result of rape or incest? if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?

i fail to see the logic in why some christian doctrines accept this moral rationale when they argue that "life is a gift from god." so what if the "child" was consummated under conditions classified as a sin? the "child" itself is innocent. after all, by their very definition, the fetus is still a human being. why condemn it for something it had no control of? pro-life supporters argue, "its not the child's fault the parents were not being sexually responsible." well, its certainly not the "child's" fault it was created because its mother had sex with a relative or that the mother was raped. what makes this "child's" life less valuable? why is it permissible to abort this "child"?

i ask the same for a defective fetus. why does it matter if the "child" will be born with abnormalities? the fetus is still considered a human life, right?

One sin does not permit another sin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That seems to be similar to what I said. She's talking about people that think abortion is wrong, except if is is a case of rape, incest and if the fetus has a mental handicap.

I think the red parts are her important points, the rest is just blah-blah-elaboration.

Do you disagree? If so, what do you think is her major point.

Actually, I think this makes her point better:

"if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?"

She was commenting about the hypocrisy of holding such beliefs.

She doesn't realize that God is racist and has silly rules that apply to some but not others. She obviously hasn't found Jesus yet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I think this makes her point better:

"if a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, why does it matter how it was brought into existence?"

She was commenting about the hypocrisy of holding such beliefs.

She doesn't realize that God is racist and has silly rules that apply to some but not others. She obviously hasn't found Jesus yet.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, fair enough.

Indeed.

Jesus wins everything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I also think it was the hypocrisy that was her main point.

I'm glad you pointed that out...wait, you didn't?

Strange. 😕 😕 😕

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think though that what I highlighted was the question she used to illuminate it.

I'm so glad we could talk about that part. Is there anything else?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed.

Jesus wins everything.

I'm glad you pointed that out...wait, you didn't?

Strange. 😕 😕 😕

I'm so glad we could talk about that part. Is there anything else?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I would still like to know if you are one of the people she is asking. Which are the ones that a) believe the fetus is human due to its potential b) think that it therefore can't be aborted and c) make an exception in cases of rape and incest.

A) true
B) most of the time...but I'm still more pro choice in the secular world.
C) true

Originally posted by dadudemon
A) true
B) most of the time...but I'm still more pro choice in the secular world.
C) true

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, how do you explain that again?

Since "that" is obviously an ambiguous pronoun, again, you'll have to define which of the three points you are referring to. Since I assume it was B), you above all people know what I meant. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since "that" is obviously an ambiguous pronoun, again, you'll have to define which of the three points you are referring to. Since I assume it was B), you above all people know what I meant. 😉

Babies conceived from rape:

A. Hitler
J. Stalin
M. Khadafi
S. Hussein
C. Manson
R. Simmons
A. Coulter

See a pattern? It's obvious rape-babies should be aborted, since they only have the potential for pure evil.

I'm in-line with option (x). Any woman who doesn't want to raise the child in her womb should have the right to abort. So sorry for so many who believe they should have the right to decide for another human being, but that isn't what was the objective of the founders. Sure, maybe aborting the child a week before it develops the ability to speak or connect legos is likely wrong, but before that it isn't the concern of the state or our neighbour.

Weed should also be legal, just like booze.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, not a trap.

Mormons believe that even then, a lady should keep the baby, but they won't get into trouble for aborting. In the case of incest, the couple will get into trouble for violating both nature (by the law) and probably get into trouble by the church. If the baby is fine....same as rule 1.

Take THAT. HA!

and you thought you had me....

i wasn't referring to mormons or other religious sects that entirely condemn abortion. i was referring to those who make exceptions.

if you consider yourself pro-life (compared to your religious standing), how did the above comment prove any point what so ever?

Originally posted by dadudemon

She was commenting about the hypocrisy of holding such beliefs.

yes, exactly. its all rather hypocritical.

i can understand being totally and completely against abortion if someone is going to argue that a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, and that there is no room for if's, and's, and but's.

but many religions and pro-life supporters believe its permissible under certain conditions, namely the ones i mentioned. the logic seems flawed, which dismantles the argument completely.