Why isn't abortion murder?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


And if it was population control i guarantee you our government would be clamoring at the chance to push it on us and that is simply not true. The main group who advocates this would be the Conservative extremest and religious aficionados.

Originally posted by neoholographic
but I just can't see the logic in a womans right to choose.

Heres the real agenda in the OP's post.

When a man doesn't want to take care of his child, he is a deadbeat dad.

When a woman doesn't want to take care of her child, it's okay because it's her choice.

Abortion is murder because people are self satisfying idiots who only think of themselves. Don't want to take care of a kid? Easy, don't have sex OR make sure you're not an idiot and take every precaution not to get pregnant because if you already have that mindset you don't deserve to have children.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
When a man doesn't want to take care of his child, he is a deadbeat dad.

When a woman doesn't want to take care of her child, it's okay because it's her choice.

Abortion is murder because people are self satisfying idiots who only think of themselves. Don't want to take care of a kid? Easy, don't have sex OR make sure you're not an idiot and take every precaution not to get pregnant because if you already have that mindset you don't deserve to have children.

Telling a grown human being to not have sex is the most immature bull mess i have ever heard. It is a womans right to ask her lover to use a condom it is a mans right to not use the condom it is the womans right to say i dont want this baby and go and abort it. I have a child and if we would have found out that she had down syndrome or something wrong with her we would have aborted her, plain and simple and it was my wife's right to choose that i do not agree with abortion but i do agree with her right to choose that outlet.

reply to post by GradientWell


Uhhh....I am an ADVOCATE for a Womans Right to Choose so I have NO IDEA why you are directing such statements at me.

I only said that I believe as much information as possible as well as being available education as well as various methods of contraception including a Females ability to easily get the Morning After Pill, Plan B and other next day contraception that once taken will not allow a fertilized egg to implant itself in the uterine wall.

I also think it is a good idea for us to find out at what specific amount of time passed does a fetus develop to having sentience as such information can only help a person make the right decision.

AT NO TIME have I EVER challenged a WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


pills and things like that are fine but abortion is still legal in this country so taking that away now is not gonna happen. you can choose to smoke the regular cigs or the E-cigs. Both have nicotine wihch is still causing harm and still causing addiction. But people can choose between the two all day long.

Do "Pro-Life" parents celebrate their child's birthday on the anniversary of his/her conception?

reply to post by GradientWell


You must have me confused for someone else as I believe the current Law that allows abortion to be the correct law.

Where are you getting these ideas about me? LOL!

Split Infinity

this whole time ive been responding to echo not you

reply to post by GradientWell


What? I don't even get an...I'm sorry?

LOL!

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by GradientWell

 

What? I don't even get an...I'm sorry?

LOL!

Split Infinity

i will say sorry only because your comment is the start of the derailment of this thread. and dont want to continue on bickering bout an accident. jokingly or seriously.

Sorry.

reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot


Eco...I also find abortion something that should be avoided if possible but let me ask you this...

I know both you and I would love nothing better that to find a VIABLE way to lower the number of abortions.

Since it is a fact of logic that to make it easy for any Female to be able to quickly get next day contraception such as the Morning After Pill or Plan B...which once taken will simply not allow a fertilized egg to implant itself in the uterine wall thus not allowing pregnancy thus drastically lowering the number of abortions.

In a womans body egg cells are fertilized often during ovulation and very often do not implant themselves in the uterine wall thus a woman does not get pregnant. This is a natural process and result of timing and other factors which the taking of such next day contraception would essentially duplicate.

Reguardless of what a person thinks the moral implications of such contraception is...the fact remains that using such contraception to prevent pregnancy is favorable than allowing the fertilized egg to implant itself and thus allowing an unwanted pregnancy that would be aborted.

Since these methods of contraception made easily and quickly available would without doubt drastically lower the number of abortions...would you not support the quick and easy availability of such methods and if not...how can you justify your position knowing all too well that there is no way you or anyone else can force an unwanted pregnancy upon a Woman and that such an unwanted pregnancy will have a very high probability of being aborted.

Split Infinity

www.lifenews.com...

A ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court today makes the argument that unborn children deserve legal protection under the law.

also:

The state court issued a ruling saying the state’s chemical endangerment of a child law also includes protection for unborn children. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange issued a statement calling the decision a victory. Strange said the court ruled that “the plain meaning of the word ‘child’ in the chemical endangerment statute includes unborn children.”

2 cases, one baby tested positive for coc aine and the other baby died of acute methamphetamine intoxication at 19 minutes after his birth.

The plain meaning of the word "child" to include the unborn should be universal and not just applied to one statute. I think this is hypocritical to protect the child from chemical endangerment and nothing more.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

The plain meaning of the word "child" to include the unborn should be universal and not just applied to one statute. I think this is hypocritical to protect the child from chemical endangerment and nothing more.

It is not hypocritical at all. Chemical endangerment is ethically completely different than abortion. Chemical endangerment during pregnancy can cause consequences of serious suffering for a lifetime, affecting a born, full legal person, thats why it is illegal.

I have steadfastly avoided this thread since you wrote it, one: because I am a women, capable of bearing children and having done so, and two: well, that's a long story with too much TMI, and that should give you an idea.

For many, this is a highly charged, highly emotional discussion. Period, end of story. No wondering, then, why it has become something of a flashpoint and litmus test of US politics.

Having said all that, I usually do not reply to a thread unless I have read all the responses, thought and gone through the empathetic evaluations of each persons' take on it. I simply can't do this here. And I apologize. Maybe for that reason I should not even reply. But I am sure there are others in the world with my experience and feelings, so I will caution a reply.

There are many "murders," here, where we are now, whatever and wherever that really is...
Nameless, faceless, and often put through so many tiers of "business," are called "white collar crimes." Many of them justify themselves by the mantle of "progress," or "scientific learning or endeavor."

Such is the life we live here.

I am a being, housed in this body, which happens to have the ability to produce a new life. I completely respect and regard that as sacred, both my body's ability to perform that function, and that new life--which is not, by the way, an extension of "me." That new life, is just what those words mean, a new, independent, and therefore, includes to possibility of miracles inherent within the concept of what life is.....it can save us, it can provide for us, it can develop into something and someone that represents and pushes us forward into a better place for all other life,,,,,,or not.

But, have you taken a good look around you, and comprehended where you are? Do you not see the paradox of being a woman, here and now? I am a being looking for God, wishing He/She/It were real, but I know where I am now, at least through my personal experience, is someplace that all definitions and names are totally up for grab, and as long as it is that way, what should be a blessing of physically being able to give life is a responsibility that goes beyond that which I can control or choose, and may simply introduce another being to living as a shell for something other than the inherent development of said being's own, naturally occurring mind and consciousness.......

reply to post by GradientWell


I wasn't telling people not to have sex, but rather suggesting it. And even if you knew a child would have a mental retardation, does that child still not deserve a chance to live?

Like i said my wife had chicken pox and even the doc asked if we would like to abort the baby due to complications that could arise out of having chicken pox while pregnant. We didn't but still we were going to and we would have. but that is my wifes decision and no one has the right to take that away from my wife plain and friggin simple.

reply to post by GradientWell


If it's her life or the life of the child, then you're right.

i was compelled to post this and i have my own opinions but they are irrelevant to the topic because i am a man and feel i would have very little contribution in a decision about abortion but i had just seen this picture and was floored because this is a fetus at 12 weeks and it's just nuts to think anyone couldn't think abortion isn't murder.

about the image.. the image isn't disgusting, shocking, bloody, gory in any manner it's simply a fetus in the palm of someones hand. i had never seen anything like this before and was why i felt compelled to post it.

reply to post by neoholographic

Why is it a womans right to choose life or death for another human being?

If you don't think a woman has the right to choose what lives inside her and what dies, then by this logic you must also think that a woman doesn't have the right to become pregnant in the first place.

If, however, you DO feel that a woman has the right to become pregnant, then she must also logically have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

Death is a touchy subject, but someone has to be in control of a woman's body, and that someone should definitely be the woman herself.

Now, why isn't sending teenagers off to fight the rich man's war called murder?

No one will never be able to make a choice that will please everyone.