This Epitomizes Why Abortion Is Wrong !

I think the real issue now with the new healthcare laws is why they would put birth control and abortion in the same catorgory. hobby lobby nuns and such would not have a leg to stand on if it were just birth control. No one on the life side of the issue should have to pay for someones abortion. perhaps just have an opt in clause for the pro choice crowd and a couple dollar surcharge to those that opt in.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
1.33 billion murdered children that we know of. Odds are, the actual number is much higher.

It is higher via spontaneous abortions.

If every fertilized egg has the same ontic and moral value as a baby then pro-lifers should know that spontaneous abortion is humanities biggest killer.

www.mainstreambaptists.org...

A Catholic embryologist trained also in Roman Catholic theology, Robert Francoeur... "If every human egg is immediately a 'fetus', 'baby' and 'person' then God and nature play a big trick on us.

Scientists estimate that in the five-six days following union and sperm, between 1/3 and 1/2 of all 'persons' spontaneously degenerate and are reabsorbed or expelled. In the second week, 42% of the implanted 'persons' abort. Thus out of every 1000 'persons' conceived, only 120-160 survive to be reborn! How do the anti-abortionists and theologians who denouce abortion as murder account for the prodigious waste of human life on the divine plan?"

But of course protesting outside an IVF clinic doesn't allow them to shout at womem.

IVF clinics deliberately create and discard "persons" every year. Where are the fanatical protesters outside such clinics shouting "murder"? If abortion was murder, IVF clinics would be prosecuted for mass murder since they deliberately create and discard "persons" every year.

I also like how pro-lifers try and dance around IVF and say things like "it's trying to create life" (they're already alive are they not?), "location is important" (rolls eyes) etc.

a reply to: adjensen

How does one perform a proper abortion if it's illegal?

How does one provide the proper care afterwards if going to the hospital also ends up throwing you in jail?

The answer is you don't. You either heal on your own, which isn't good anyway considering the nasty procedure you probably just went through, or you die.

You take issue with the numbers I stated, I take issues with the one stated in the OP.

Don't get me wrong, one person dying from an illegal abortion is terrible, but in my view, one person dies in every abortion. People who can discount embryos as being not alive, not worthy of life, or not equal in their right to live don't see it that way, but I do, and I do for legal, as well as religious, reasons.

I can see your religious argument. Your lawful one is flawed because we don't actually provide ANY kind of rights to people under the age of 18 really.

ALL Power of attorney is left to the parents. What difference is there between an abortion and removing somebody from life support?

~Tenth

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: Bone75



If you cant breathe for yourself or nourish yourself or exist by yourself....

If you are reliant on another to enable those things .... You are a parasite ....

So then do you become a parasite when you are too old to do those things by yourself?

Good to know that I am nearly a "useless bread eater" because I have MS and now in a wheelchair. Tell you what, instead of me becoming a parasite on society, you come and remove me from society and then you can have a bigger share of bread.

Sound fair?

a reply to: adjensen

and I do for legal, as well as religious, reasons.

What legal benefits are there to defining a fertilized egg as a person? How can we possible think it's okay to tell a woman that what's in her uterus has more value and rights than she?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Your lawful one is flawed because we don't actually provide ANY kind of rights to people under the age of 18 really.

Really? You think it is legal to kill someone who is under the age of 18?

As I recall, you're from Canada, but in the US, we have this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is no age requirement to the rights declared there. Neither does it say "these rights are only granted when a baby breathes air, or reaches 16 weeks in the womb."

The Declaration of Independence states that life is an inalienable right, endowed by our Creator (Jefferson was a Deist, but still recognized that something "above" another human granted those rights,) and which cannot be taken away by anything less than our creator.

How to get around that?

Something isn't alive unless it is desired.

That is the evil, and it is couched in legalism, not religion.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Planned Parenthood was created by the Eugenics movement. Yes, Margaret Sanger advocated aborting races.

Then you need to read Sanger's books on the subject.

And since there are so many things she has said that it would take too much space, let me give you the link to some of her most memorable quotes, that she wrote and were published nationally...

Margaret Sanger Quotes

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Rebellious members?

And here is the pro-choice answer that Margaret Sanger proposed to have laws made about having children...

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

Where's the choice? Ah yes, the choice to have an abortion.

And here's a link to more quotes and speeches

"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a
deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to
the race."
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent
Multiplication of this bad stock."
-- Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review .

Um, it sounds to me like she was fairly racist and decided that Eugenics was appropriate for annihilation of races.

a reply to: windword

what's in her uterus has more value and rights than she?

It doesn't have more rights, it has equal rights. It has a right to life, just as she has a right to life.

That's the atheist argument, by the way, but it's one that I agree with.

a reply to: adjensen

Well you've better explained it, so yes I could agree with that.

I still don't think that making abortion illegal is the answer.

Personally I think we should really limit the circumstances where somebody can have an abortion, but I don't know where that line is, because I don't pretend that my opinion holds more water than others.

I don't think you think, that you think that either mind you.

It's an insanely tough thing to come to terms with and discuss.

I don't consider Abortion before 16 weeks to be murder. That's a personal choice based on the science that I've read, which excludes any and all ideas regarding spiritualism, religion etc..

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the religious folks are right. Science doesn't yet really know the ins and outs of procreation. I doubt we'll figure it out anytime soon.

~Tenth

a reply to: adjensen

There is no age requirement to the rights declared there.

Being "born" is a requirement for citizenship. If a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that a woman who conceives while here on vacation has an American Citizen in her womb? This a whole new kind of anchor baby!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: adjensen

There is no age requirement to the rights declared there.

Being "born" is a requirement for citizenship. If a fertilized egg is a person, does that mean that a woman who conceives while here on vacation has an American Citizen in her womb? This a whole new kind of anchor baby!

Don't we offer illegal immigrants the same right to life when they are here? The last time I looked, we weren't rounding them up and killing all of them that we find.

There may be some people who think we should, but that's a different discussion. Even illegal immigrants are read Miranda rights when arrested. So just because they aren't citizens doesn't mean they don't have the same right to life. Liberty, that's another story as well as the pursuit of happiness.

But in the pursuit of happiness, we also have limits on that. As much as some people might like to go strolling down the street nude, we simply don't allow it.

a reply to: adjensen

It doesn't have more rights, it has equal rights. It has a right to life, just as she has a right to life.

No, it's not the same. A woman is an autonomous individual with a free will and a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. A fertilized egg can't pursue anything. She can't be forced to give up her autonomy and individual rights because of an unwanted biological chemical reaction within her own body.

All men may be created equal but a fertilized egg isn't a man and all "life" isn't equal.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't consider Abortion before 16 weeks to be murder.

Fair enough, but what if it is?

What if that's a viable person, every bit as deserving of the right to life as you are, only deprived of time? There is no hard and fast line, so by your standards, maybe a baby aborted at 15 weeks that is "ahead of its time" is murder, or one aborted at 17 weeks hadn't quite made it to your mark.

How can we draw some arbitrary line in the sand and say "it's okay to kill a fetus before this day, it's murder if we kill it after this day", and compound that with "and if the woman wants the child, it's murder even if it's killed two days after contraception"?

a reply to: windword

Not by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. That claim is courtesy of the Supreme Court, and their interpretation of the law is that it is legal to abort something that is not alive, and that the definition of what is alive is whether the woman desires the child or not.

She wants to be pregnant? If the fetus is harmed, someone who harms it will be prosecuted.

She doesn't want to be pregnant? The fetus can be killed without any consequence.

"Life" is now a matter of preference.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: adjensen

It doesn't have more rights, it has equal rights. It has a right to life, just as she has a right to life.

No, it's not the same. A woman is an autonomous individual with a free will and a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. A fertilized egg can't pursue anything. She can't be forced to give up her autonomy and individual rights because of an unwanted biological chemical reaction within her own body.

All men may be created equal but a fertilized egg isn't a man and all "life" isn't equal.

Women don't have the same equal right to life as men?

We finally got the right to vote and politicians have binders full of women, but maybe you mean same quality of life?

a reply to: WarminIndy

"Men" is colloquial and is meant to mean "humanity" or the human race. However, in the case of the constitution not all "men" were equal, all white Christian male men were equal.

But, what I meant is that a fertilized egg is not a life that is equal to a grown man's life. Not all life is equal. A grown man's life is more valuable than a fertilized egg. A woman's autonomy is more important that a fertilized egg.

a reply to: adjensen

Not by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. That claim is courtesy of the Supreme Court, and their interpretation of the law is that it is legal to abort something that is not alive, and that the definition of what is alive is whether the woman desires the child or not.

Citation please! I don't that's true. The Supreme Court did say that a fetus doesn't have the right to life, I don't it ever said that a fetus isn't alive.

She wants to be pregnant? If the fetus is harmed, someone who harms it will be prosecuted.

She doesn't want to be pregnant? The fetus can be killed without any consequence.

A woman's choice is sacred. It's her body, her choice. If another person assaults her, purposefully depriving her of her choice then that person should be punished.

But, you know as well as I that law, Unborn Victims of Violence Act was the brain child of the religious right and the pro-life community, and was criticized for being used as a "foot in the door" to a personhood amendment, which is exactly what the pro-life, religious right is doing. Just as predicted. You guys are calling your own law hypocritical! LOL!

a reply to: adjensen

I just don't know how you would draw a line period, without it being entirely subjective.

In the absence of absolute truth and understanding regarding conception, I guess we have to rely on what we know.

~Tenth

a reply to: windword

But, you know as well as I that law, Unborn Victims of Violence Act was the brain child of the religious right and the pro-life community

Okay, so let me make sure that I understand what you're saying.

If a pregnant woman, who wants to be pregnant, is assaulted and the result of that assault is the loss of her child, the person who attacks her should only be charged with simple assault, right? A punch in the abdomen that results in a miscarriage should be treated no differently than me being punched in the abdomen?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

In the absence of absolute truth and understanding regarding conception, I guess we have to rely on what we know.

And what we know is that a fertilized egg (that implants itself, nod to Windword) will be fully protected by the law once enough time has passed, assuming that it is not aborted in the womb.

What is your justification for killing it prior to your arbitrary 16 week deadline, that even you admit isn't hard and fast?