¿ For or Against Abortion ?

Originally posted by TrueLies

If this wasn't "life" we're ridding ourselves of via doctor's hands, why is it so controversial?

Because not everyone agrees on whether an unborn [insert preferred term] has rights. Let me ask you the same question, backwards: If it's so obviously a "life", why is it so controversial? Reversing the question enables this possible answer: "Because some people want to trample over the rights of a woman, in order to protect a fetus which cannot exist outside of the womb anyway".

It's just murder directed against children who are inches from birth, let's not play semantics, as I get the notion that calling the baby inside the womb (it) or (fetus) makes the argument to murder (abort) ok.

Sorry, but a 7 week old fetus is not inches from birth.

It cannot survive outside of the womb; if a premature labour was to occur, it would invariably result in the death of the fetus.

That doesn't make good supporting evidence for the argument for "children who are inches away from birth".

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Sorry, but a 7 week old fetus is not inches from birth.

I didn't say a 7 week fetus, partial birth abortion takes place at 5 months +.

That is beyond a fetus.

Wait wait wait...I thought this thread was the "for/against" debate?!

Am I just totally confused here?

The "PBA" thread is over there, I thought? *pointing*

(Or do I just need a lot more coffee?)

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
The "PBA" thread is over there, I thought? *pointing*
(Or do I just need a lot more coffee?)

These threads have been confusing me as well... I would propose more coffee.. I need to get some myself I just reponded about pba's in the other thread, I thought this question was in that thread as well.. but it's not.

Originally posted by TrueLies
Are these women so stupid as to forget about the morning after pill?
Are you that much of a moron and a lazy stub to wait until the baby develops a brain and then kill it?

Is that when it becomes a 'life' to you? When it develops a brain? Or is it at conception? Because the Morning after pill can be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse and one of it's methods of preventing pregnancy is by altering the womb to NOT allow a fertilized egg to attach to the lining of the uterus.

The morning after pill acts to delay ovulation, prevents fertilization, or inhibits implantation by altering the endometrium.

Source

Just wanted to point out that in advocating this pill, you're saying you're in favor of stripping this 'life' of a place to attach and grow.

My point really is that even anti-abortionists disagree on when life really begins.

Edit: I saw your answer to this in another thread (that other thread over there), so... never mind.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

I know it gets confusing because the whole issue of women choices has been made to become confusing to the point that many women will happily agree to give away their rights to their bodies to the courts that to defend themselves against what the whole thing is about.

Subjugating women's and to make choices for them by law.

If the whole point was to stop abortion the same groups that are advocating for the rights of fetuses would also be more than happy to provide women with the necessary means to stop an unwanted pregnancy.

No body in here so far has been able to bring one single subject beside the rights of fetuses.

Where are the men responsibilities when it comes to women's pregnancy where are the repercussions against them. I don't see any legislation that will prohibit a man from engaging in sex without protection or going to jail for causing a pregnancy for not using protection.

Why is that? because is not about men and men rights is about women and controlling women's bodies.

Even some of the males in this boards knows what is all about and they are for the rights of women and for the rights to have women accessible means to stop unwanted pregnancies.

Look at many of the "Moral majority" groups that are against abortion they are also against any means of contraception.

Anybody be anti abortion and pro abortion that believe in women's rights to have control over their bodies should be questioning the motives of these various groups that hides behind morality and religion.

They are good at pushing the rights of fetuses but what about the rights of women's to their bodies.

Bible says fetus is not a human. It says a fetus is just a little below that of property. The bible says it isn't human until it breaths outside of the mother. The "Breath of Life". So all Pro-Lifers who use the bible to support them are wrong, the bible supports abortion as a fetus isn't human, hell it's barely property according to the bible.

Bible says fetus is not a human. It says a fetus is just a little below that of property. The bible says it isn't human until it breaths outside of the mother. The "Breath of Life". So all Pro-Lifers who use the bible to support them are wrong, the bible supports abortion as a fetus isn't human, hell it's barely property according to the bible.

the bible mentions nothing about a fetus, it mentions a child. so you are wrong.

EC

No it clearly says a fetus isn't human, it isn't human until it gets the breath of life, according to the bible. It also says a man can get the guy fined if he wants to for lost PROPERTY, not murder or loss of baby, but property. Sorry, bible supports me and abortion.

www.mwillett.org...

All the proof I need, well, besides the bible. Pick one up at your local store, or join the statistic for #1 most stolen book! Funny, stealing is a sin yet christians have stolen more then anyone else.

I support all forms of abortion no restrictions whatsoever. It should be the woman choice only, no body should be able to decide if a woman should have baby or not.

Evolution Cruncher or any other hard line prolifer:Would you still be against abortion if say it was your 13 year old daughter who got raped?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the bible mentions nothing about a fetus, it mentions a child. so you are wrong.

EC

The metaphysical debates of soul entry (fetus inanimatus versus fetus animatus) are far older than then new testament or even Christianity itself, but certainly in the 2000 years since the debate continued and your apparent beliefs of fetus animatus at the time of conception are pretty revisionist and new. The constitution of the United States of America is older than any such papal decree separating the LONG STANDING historical church perspective that the fetus has no soul and abortion is a-okay in Christian doctrine until it LOOKS LIKE A BABY.

The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul: "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (7:3)

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 1 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation." gained acceptance within the medical and church communities. 2 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at the time of conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church had previously taught.

Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

A Papal decree in 1884 prohibited craniotomies. This is an operation that kills the fetus by dismantling its skull. The procedure was occasionally needed in order to save the life of the pregnant woman. In 1886, a second decree extended the prohibition to all operations that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The effects of these decrees would often be the death of both the woman and the fetus. These rules are still in place today, although they are ignored by most North American physicians -- both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The Roman Catholic church has occasionally "held funeral and burial services" for aborted fetuses. 3 However, this has not been the general rule. Embryos and pre-viable fetus have not usually been considered full persons to the extent of being worthy of a formal requiem mass or a formal burial service.

As new as protestantism and even America are, even such a thing as a Papal threat of excommunication for skull dismantling partial birth abortions is only about a century old.

So don't just take what your neo-Christian preacher says about the way things are or have been at face value. As much as I think the Roman Catholic Church has just been pulling things out of their butt the past 2,000 years, it's OBVIOUS neo-protestants have as pertains to modern interpretations of the Bible and applications to current issues like how AMERICA should be run.

www.religioustolerance.org...


[edit on 18-9-2005 by RANT]

In order to have the masses lean on the issues at hand many will tried to use any means of disinformation and tactics needed to pursue their agendas.

The issue of abortion or fetuses was not even look at with much interest until recently like Rant said.

Why is that? because now is an agenda behind it. For centuries women has used any means available to control reproduction.

Abortion, fetuses being pregnant and sex is not a modern ailment is has been with us since boy discovered girls and girls allowd them to take hold of their bodies

No it clearly says a fetus isn't human, it isn't human until it gets the breath of life, according to the bible. It also says a man can get the guy fined if he wants to for lost PROPERTY, not murder or loss of baby, but property. Sorry, bible supports me and abortion.

you have a reference?

EC

www.mwillett.org...

I posted it once, I'll post it again.....

yeah thats a twist of the truth... try reading some other parts of the bible and not just the parts that make sense to you. the last time I checked, babies had blood. and since they are innocent, killing them is against the bible.

if you think about it real hard, abortions actually cause more souls to enter heaven. since babies are ignorant and do not understand the law, an exception is made.

EC

I am 100% in vote for a womans right to choose. BUT Marg you said something about men and our responsibilty.

W\ is that as a man I have no choice? What if you decide you want an abortion but I want the child. Or what if you decide you want the child but I want nothing to do with it. Why should I have to pay child support? I do believe that this is a quandry because it should not just be the mother, but the father should also be involved. I really think that Roe/v/Wade should be overturned until such a time that the father is recognized as not a sperm donor. This is a really touchy subject and I absolutly would want my daughter to come to me and talk it out. I have two great kids and their mom and I tried to make our marriage work but it failed after 15 years.

I don't believe in abortion. Yet I do respect a womans right to choose.

It is a woman's right whether or not to have an abortion. I personally believe that government, all be it state or federal, should not be able to ban abortions. If the Bible says it is ok to have an abortion, so be it. If the Bible says that it is immoral to have an abortion, so be it. It's people like George W. and others that give it a bad rap.