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

reply to post by Gorman91

I do not see why women should have the right to erase their mistakes. I do not see why men should have something they can force a women to do to erase their mistakes. I do not see why these mistakes must be destroyed by careless people.

I do not see why they should not have that right. You should have a right to do anything which does not harm third person. Victimless "crimes" such as taking drugs or abortion do not harm anyone.

I've been arguing a secular pro life stance for roughly 4 years now. It started as a purely moral challenge when I became an atheist. Even though I no longer am an atheist, the challenge remained. Just for the sake of knowing if there was a scientific secular way to be pro life. To me, there is.

Of course there may be. But as with every other moral view, secular or religious, the fact-value distinction prevents science alone to distinguish between these views. For that, you need subjective morality. What "feels" good, and what "feels" bad.

Otherwise we would not even have this discussion, you would show me some experiment or something and I would not have any other option than to agree and change my view. Everyone (except some crackpots) would suddenly agree with you. Thats how science works, contrary to morality.

Ironically abortion is life. Stem cell research has recently shown that it can plausibly cure blindness, let alone regeneration of damaged organs; heart muscle cells etc. Something like this could be considered as true morality, as it is much more open minded in terms of impact.

Considering the circumstances of ones life, there will always be a choice, and that choice should be given in every hospital on this Earth. Abortion is not good, and it is not bad. Both sides can be argued I guess. (That's me being nice.)

Originally posted by LxHide
Ironically abortion is life. Stem cell research has recently shown that it can plausibly cure blindness, let alone regeneration of damaged organs; heart muscle cells etc. Something like this could be considered as true morality, as it is much more open minded in terms of impact.

Considering the circumstances of ones life, there will always be a choice, and that choice should be given in every hospital on this Earth. Abortion is not good, and it is not bad. Both sides can be argued I guess. (That's me being nice.)

Indeed. Maybe I can understand the thought process of people who consider a woman who willingly engages in unprotected sex and then aborts the embryo bad (altrough I dont agree with it, since it stems only from their personal subjective moral outrage and not from any objective harm to actual thinking beings).
But to say that completely unsentient lump of human stem cells should not be killed even if it helps cure actual sentient and suffering people of such diseases is beyond my comprehension. Killing of human embryos in order to cure actually existing sentient people is a very moral act, since it would result in high increase in the wellbeing of sentient creatures, without any harm being done to any other sentient creatures (which is the definition of good in utilitarian morality I subscribe to).

reply to post by Maslo


Sigh. Same old argument. Been there done that. Why speak with the fools whom never learn?

Why even bother? I'm not getting stuck into another failed attempt at circular logic by you. You're officially on ignore. Go yell at a wall or something.

reply to post by troubleshooter


You have the pill an a condom, if you get pregnant on both, you might as well call him Jesus.

reply to post by Gorman91


Easy for you to say. You don;t have a embryo growing inside your body. Nor do you go though the pain of childbirth. Until you do. Your simply a man, involving himself in a womans issue.Period. Why? Because YOU know whta's best for women.


The community as you call it, should not invlove itself in such a personal issue.

I think you'll find "Murder" is a legal term and though your argument about life begining at fertilization may have some merit, abortion is NOT 'murder' unless the supreme court classifies it as 'murder'.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


I don't accept such an argument.

Simple as that.


Childbirth is a biological process. People poop, fart, get tumors, have heart attacks, get depressed, etc etc. Having a child isn't anything particularly special. You want to argue it makes females unique sure it does. It doesn't make the actual experience unique.

Ever play the poop game as a kid? See who can go the longest without pooping? I'm fairly certain plenty of us as kids popped baby sized turds out once or twice. Blood and all. Fun times. Painful times.

Or hey, how about men whom are accidentally born with a uterus, or women accidentally born with two? Do they get more right to say?After all, they experience the same thing! Women with two uterus (uteri?) have twice the pain during their periods. Men experience such pains too.

How about transgendered? They're men now, but they still have periods and sometimes give birth if they keep some of the parts. What then?

Get out of the 1960s. It isn't just men and women anymore. That line has been shattered, and dissolves more every day. 10 years from now you won't even need a woman to have a child probably. You probably won't even need a guy's sperm. Get out of this archaic men vs women thinking of a bygone era, which in and of itself was a very flawed system of utter stupidity.


The community does manage itself. It does get involved with personal issues. It reports individuals that look like they may kill someone, or pedophiles, etc etc. Don't see any reason why it should have the right to say abortion is murder.

reply to post by mrshakabuku


The supreme court says corporations are people, so I don't rely on the supreme court to know what the hell they're talking about.

About the stem cell issue, you are confused. Sucess has only come from using. ADULT
stem cells, none of which you speak of has occurred from FETAL stem cell research.

Pax

reply to post by paxnatus


Most people against abortion are strong religious believers. Religion tells us that we are spirits, not bodies. Yet, these people base all of their arguments on physical chemicals. There is not one mention of a soul or spirit of any kind. Maybe because they don't know. Those that have done research of a non-physical nature know that the soul is not created at or by conception, but was pre-existing and enters the body at varying times, sometimes at conception, sometimes not until just after birth, sometimes anywhere in between. The body cannot survive without a spirit for very long after birth. Before birth, a spirit is not actually needed for life, because the woman's body supports the baby's body until it is born.

You make your own conclusions, but, if you are a religious person, you should be making your conclusions based on humans being spirits, not a bunch of chemicals.

Ironically abortion is life. Stem cell research has recently shown that it can plausibly cure blindness, let alone regeneration of damaged organs; heart muscle cells etc. Something like this could be considered as true morality, as it is much more open minded in terms of impact. Considering the circumstances of ones life, there will always be a choice, and that choice should be given in every hospital on this Earth. Abortion is not good, and it is not bad. Both sides can be argued I guess. (That's me being nice.)

reply to post by LxHide

Although I don't agree with anything you said, let's assume you are correct. Then, by that logic, you would support killing someone and taking their organs and transplanting them to save other lives. This is exactly the logic that the Nazis and their doctors used in experimenting with Jews and others they considered "undesirables".

As for your use of the word choice, you seem to have forgotten the one person who has no choice, the baby that is aborted.

Kudos to the OP for having the courage to post a topic which always brings the worst out in many.

reply to post by paxnatus

i agree wholeheartedly with you i find some of the pro choice views on what constitutes 'life' absolutely bizzarre.If life begins at birth then we face some strange anomalies namely:what state was the baby in before it was "born" inanimate?.so how does one explain how the baby becomes born from a state of being UN born?how can it be biologically possible for a feotus at any stage from conception to birth to not be alive?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by openyourmind1262

 

Childbirth is a biological process.

DEATH is a biological process, too. With out death there would be little to no evolutionary differentiation over time and the most advanced life on Earth would most likely still be bacteria in the ocean.

You owe your life to the hundreds of billions of clumps of animated matter that lived and died before you, that you and I are directly descended from.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

DEATH is a biological process, too. With out death there would be little to no evolutionary differentiation over time and the most advanced life on Earth would most likely still be bacteria in the ocean. You owe your life to the hundreds of billions of clumps of animated matter that lived and died before you, that you and I are directly descended from.

What does any of this have to do with the issue of abortion?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

 

DEATH is a biological process, too. With out death there would be little to no evolutionary differentiation over time and the most advanced life on Earth would most likely still be bacteria in the ocean. You owe your life to the hundreds of billions of clumps of animated matter that lived and died before you, that you and I are directly descended from.

What does any of this have to do with the issue of abortion?

It is directly related because people are completely over-looking the reality of the situation. There is no right or wrong. Laws do not make something right or wrong. There is only matter existing in space-time.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac


Some matter can control other matter simply by the way they came about.

This matter deserves more protection because it has the potential to change what matter is.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mrshakabuku

 

The supreme court says corporations are people, so I don't rely on the supreme court to know what the hell they're talking about.

Corporations are not natural persons. So maybe it is you who does not know what he is talking about.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

As for your use of the word choice, you seem to have forgotten the one person who has no choice, the baby that is aborted.
Then, by that logic, you would support killing someone and taking their organs and transplanting them to save other lives.

Except that baby in the womb is not a person, or "someone". It is someTHING, until the brain develops.

Things dont have rights.

Originally posted by Maslo
Except that baby in the womb is not a person, or "someone". It is someTHING, until the brain develops.

Things dont have rights.

And given that statistics suggest that 1 in every 3 pregnancies ends in either miscarriage or still birth, we should concentrate on ensuring that those babies that are wanted get to term healthily. There are millions of children worldwide born to parents who either don't want them or do not have the means to care for them. Care homes filled to the rafters with kids that nobody wants. Abortion is in many ways a kinder option, especially if it occurs early enough. However, the best option of all, is a society where sex is approached as a natural part of our development as social beings, so that when people do choose to have sex they can be equipped with the information and tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Until that time though, abortion will remain as a form of contraception, after the fact. Encouraging good sexual hygiene and the use of contraception should be the ideal that we work towards, accompanied by open dialogue untainted by belief systems, whether those beliefs be religious or irreligious.