Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

reply to post by OhZone


I find it hard to believe that anyone half educated would favour that and i certainly don't, we've come along way but lets be realistic. Look at the animal kingdom and nature itself for a second. Female of all species an incubator, generally yes as most species the female gets pregnant gives birth and get pregnant again as soon as biologically possible and so on until they can't. Enforced pregnancy if you want to call it that to make it sound crude is generally only a violation in advanced human society not anywhere else. The power comment is silly as pregnancy has never been about power but an instictive urge to keep your species alive. It would be interesting to see your reaction if a male dog or cat snuck into your yard and had sex with you female dog or cat...

We have changed the rules in a big way and are having alot of issues like this debate defining new rules that everyone ( religion, politics, public etc) will agree on. We don't play by the laws of nature anymore and supress our inbuilt instincts. In doing so regardless of individuals opinions the new laws of human nature are not defined by you or i but all of us as a species together.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
No one can control who can do what anyhow, we've all learned this in the complete failure of the war on drugs. People are going to do what they want to do, and that's it.

I personally think aborting a life is wrong, the couple wanting the procedure was irresponsible about getting pregnant in the first place.

But again, we're not here to tell people what they can and can't do. So it's time to stop controlling others and worry about setting a good example instead.

edit on 26-1-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)

So, me getting pregnant due to my ex raping me is ME being irresponsible for getting pregnant? You honestly believe that?? What about those cases, myself as the best example, that happened because of failed birth control, and a broken condom? Was that irresponsibility on my parents part?? No, it wasn't.
Unwanted pregnancy =/= irresponsible behavior.

reply to post by Openeye


On a pure logical basis, there is only one legal reason abortion would be justified. Rape. And even then it's only just barely.

You can't say your body your choice, because if you weren't raped, you had a choice in sex. If you didn't wear protection, you don't have an excuse. If your protection failed, you accepted the chances of that happening.

You cannot say it's not a person, because in a day when corporations are people, that's just plain bullsh*t. And it's undeniable that people, as a concept, is flawed, as it has no set definition, and also it has no standing to stay under whatever definition we make it (again, corporations are people now).

You cannot say it's not a human because it has no brain, for the brain of a human is virtually not special until a ways after it is born. Furthermore it is a fact that not all brains of all ages are the same, so having a brain is not an entry right to being a human person, for children do not have adult brains.

And you can't really say "if you ban it, people will try to get it and die of injuries. If you are that desperate to kill a child, you're more f'd up than you'd like to admit and you get what you deserve. forgive my heartlessness, but I have no empathy for people whom risk their own life to kill another life, for sake of their own lives. That's like, the polar opposite of dieing to save another life. The most respectable act a human can do. It follows its opposite is the least respectable thing a human can do.

There's tons of other long arguments that have been settled but nobody accepts their reality.

With rape, there simply was a violation of free will. Thus we have no right to say you must have that kid. But it is still murder in this case. There is a human in there, and it's being killed by no say of its own future. We simply cannot of principal allow a violation to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Much words and discussion are needed on rape, for nobody really has an answer.

reply to post by Believer101


If your stuff broke you gambled and lost. There's no excuse.

If you got raped nobody can say it was your fault, but if you knew the guy and worse still, you were in a relationship with him, you must accept that you did not know a person well enough then you thought you did. That doesn't make you at fault though. Just incredibly bad at picking who to be with.

reply to post by Gorman91


As I've oft repeated in this thread, personal responsibility is seriously lacking in todays society.

People will jump through hoops to avoid it (as also seen). They blur meanings, obfuscate terms, and deny reason.

I wonder though. . . . .

Since it is legal (abortion), why are so many concerned?

Do they fear it will be made illegal?
Or are they (deep down) ashamed and try to overcome an internal guilt with the rabid vocal intensity that we often see?

reply to post by beezzer


don't say well said. I accept the fact that I am heartless on these issues and cold; without empathy for many. My post after that one shows that heartlessness. I simply wish to see the counter to cold, emotionless logic.

As to its legality. It's an issue of if you think some people are more important than others; if one really has mastery over themselves across both time and place.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by beezzer

 

don't say well said. I accept the fact that I am heartless on these issues and cold; without empathy for many. My post after that one shows that heartlessness. I simply wish to see the counter to cold, emotionless logic.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

There's a difference between being heartless and pragmatic.

But I'll recind my complement.

See I'm not sure about this...Science can't rightfully answer an ethics question. At fertilsation there's little difference between a human and any other basic lifeforms. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that if it's wrong, then so too should be killing bacteria and the like.

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
See I'm not sure about this...Science can't rightfully answer an ethics question. At fertilsation there's little difference between a human and any other basic lifeforms. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that if it's wrong, then so too should be killing bacteria and the like.

It's not up to science to answer ethics questions.

Ethics is the moral application to the discoveries of science.

At 3 days, 3 months, the potential for life exists. And abortion and all it's arguments for it, are nothing more than an abdication of responsibility and a justification for killing an unborn child.

If I were to drink a bottle of Jack, then go joyriding, blow a red light and kill a pregnant mother, I would be facing 2 vehicular manslaughter charges, right?

Sell some bad "junk" to a pregnant fiend and she dies?
Double homicide.

Yet, mommy chooses to end that same life, it's her right.

Is it or isn't it a life?

It's hard to say but perhaps its good to allow abortion. If a woman is too much of an idiot to use adequate protection and then she decides to terminate, at least there's a chance she won't be a part of the gene pool in the future, or at least delay it.

If a storm tears off part of your roof, it wasn't planned, yet people take responsibility to fix the roof.

If a rock flies up and cracks your window while you're driving, it wasn't planned, yet people take responsibility to see that the window is fixed.

If a woman finds herself pregnant and she didn't want to be, she can abort (kill) the baby.

So apparently, a car, a home, is more important than a life. People don't destroy their home because of what the storm did. People don't trash their cars because of what a rock did.

Yet people needlessly kill in order to avoid that responsibility because society and government said it was okay.

Responsibility isn't something we can just vouluntarily accept. Sometimes, responsibility is thrust upon us.

Life begins when an infant takes their first independent breath, if life did begin at fertilisation, then it would be classed as murder. Hence why abortion is perfectly legal.

Being an atheist, I wish this particular argument would come to an end.. Personally, I feel it's a woman right to do with her body what she wants. It seems the NEW argument is when does life actually start. At birth or at conception?

Now I am no biologist or conception expert, but it seems to me that fetus cannot develope outside the womans womb. Which means it's alive along as it stay's in the womb and matures into a full term baby, which means all that time it;s dependent upon the mother.

At birth, the baby takes it's first breath,"breath of life". It now can exist outside the womb breathing it's own air. Now it seems to me that's when it starts. At the first breath of life. Now being an atheist, I have read the bible, all of them , way more than once. More than one verse in the Old Testament states that very fact. actually there are several passages pertaining to the "breath of life".

I'll leave it to our more religous members to site those verse's. So is it a moral decision or a decision of law?

If our religous readers state it's moral, then abortion is wrong. If our religous readers say all births are Gods plan, then arent all the abortions God's plan also? Would that not make God responsable for all abortions on this planet since the dawn of time? Quite an mess, isnt it?

reply to post by paxnatus


I'm sure you wrote this same letter to every president before him that didn't appeal Roe v. Wade. Right?

Originally posted by DRFGM
Life begins when an infant takes their first independent breath, if life did begin at fertilisation, then it would be classed as murder. Hence why abortion is perfectly legal.

Quite frankly, that creeps me out. So you would be ok with a doctor mutilating a 9 month old child inside a mothers womb and them removing the pieces? That's really ok with you, since it hasn't taken an independent breath?

I'd say abortion at a certain point is murder. I don't consider a cell cluster to be alive until it has brain activity. At that point, it's really "alive."

But to make things easier, don't have an abortion.

reply to post by paxnatus


If life begins at fertilization, then the only moral birth control is condoms and a male birth control pill(as it prevents fertilization).

Yeah, I think I will go with that argument(I would love to see a viable male birth control on the market). So everyone who is pro-life should support a male birth control option as it would prevent the destruction of life!

reply to post by paxnatus


An embryo can't develop after fertilization alone. Implantation has to happen. So I would say that it begins at implantation.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I'd say abortion at a certain point is murder. I don't consider a cell cluster to be alive until it has brain activity. At that point, it's really "alive."

But to make things easier, don't have an abortion.

Well, going in and killing the fetus in the womb and sucking the remains out with a vacuum is murder. If abortion must exist, it should only be done in a hospital. And done via labor induction, so that way if the "fetus" survives it has a chance to live(and all custody rights of the mother are auto terminated[except the right to pay child support to the child's father as if the father is known or comes forward that is where the child should be sought to be placed first, adoption as a secondary option if the father is a nonviable parent]).