Why isn't abortion murder?

page: 16
12
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


Your response has got me thinking, it was women who pushed for their pro-choice rights, so it will be women who have to push back and become the majority who say it's murder to end this, nothing else will work. Thus a greater responsibility rests with womankind on this issue. They must become a political force, that forces the courts and legislators to reverse this.
edit on 22-1-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This whole abortion or not abortion issue is like closing the barn door nafter the horse gets out.
Me i dont believe in abortion unless its rape insest or health issues .MY SOLUTION for the exessive abortions is EDCUTATION fix the problem at its sorce .
Teach ALL boys and girls TO BE Responcible with there bodys and there wont be abortions .
BUt abortion is like saying Im irresponcible and take the easy way out .
heck i Made darn sure i was fincinaly reday to have kids BEFOR my OOo GET this (((wife))) got preggers
yea wife humm showsw responcibilty and cominment being marred FIRST .
for the love of mike use a a proflactic lol love that word lol or and the pill



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Webster's dictionary defines murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"


As long as abortion is allowed by the law it is NOT Murder.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Webster's dictionary defines murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"


As long as abortion is allowed by the law it is NOT Murder.


And also dont forget that the beginning of personhood is not a settled question at all.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by tetra50
 


Your response has got me thinking, it was women who pushed for their pro-choice rights, so it will be women who have to push back and become the majority who say it's murder to end this, nothing else will work. Thus a greater responsibility rests with womankind on this issue. They must become a political force, that forces the courts and legislators to reverse this.
edit on 22-1-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't hold my breath.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I will agree that the definition of murder is set by the court system. Whether it is right or wrong to take the life of an unborn child the court system allows everyone to decide for themselves. I see this especially after the unborn baby has developed as the opportunity to kill as you wish with no punishment from the court system. I believe it is wrong but everyone will have to answer for that after they die. Many don't care and believe it is their right. I could make an argument that I have a right to buy a gun. Then I could use it to shoot and kill just about anyone. It would not be legal except in self defense or war. Most of the time it would be wrong, just like taking the life of an unborn developed child. We have the ability to do bad things but it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do whether our laws agree or not. my opinion

As far as defining intelligent human life and when it begins, many people do not want to feel constrained. If women get raped, many do not want to have the baby of the rapist inside them. There are probably millions of people who would not be here today if all kids born of rape were not born and no one would consider killing off all these people. Putting babies up for adoption seems to be an option that is forgotten about. Over 45 million dead children have been killed since abortion was legalized and the president focuses on gun control as a method to stop violence. I believe this country is very misguided as to what is right and wrong or where their priorities should be. Those 45 million were not killed with a gun, maybe knives and other instruments as a doctor cut off their arms and legs until they finally died. It's all legal too. A paradise for those who like to kill.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 





It's 2013. Let's stop pretending a 4,000 year old book that has been changed thousands of times by human beings has control over every single person's life. This is not a legitimate source of human morality whatsoever. Look at the last scripture you quoted: "Make sure you're a sociopath or God is your enemy"; come on, now.


The last scripture I quoted was:



James 4:4 4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.


perhaps you misread what I quoted, no worries I'm sure you didn't intend too, it happens to the best of us.

Matthew 13:10,11
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you want to understand why some call the bible the "living Word" you must want it more than life itself......

Proverbs 2:3-5
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

If you do those things, He will reveal himself to you. God bless you.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OldSchoolMom
 

This feels off-topic to me, but if you and LightOrange are having a discussion about it, I thought I'd stick my nose in. Spank me if I deserve it.
From LightOrange:

It's 2013. Let's stop pretending a 4,000 year old book that has been changed thousands of times by human beings has control over every single person's life. This is not a legitimate source of human morality whatsoever. Look at the last scripture you quoted: "Make sure you're a sociopath or God is your enemy"; come on, now.
Well, starting with the New Testament, we have this:

When scholars have copies of ancient writings, they can:
A) Compare the different copies that they have (if the copies are wildly different, then obviously many changes were made)
B) Determine how much time has passed between the time the texts were written and the earliest copies (the greater the amount of time, the more likely the possibility of changes having happened)
C) Look at where the various copies were found (if all ancient copies were from one specific area, the easier it would have been to make changes that were reflected in all existing copies)
D) Look at references to the ancient texts in other works, if any (if other authors refer to or quote from the ancient text, but they say something different than what our copies say, then clearly someone changed things somewhere along the line).

The result of studying these factors for the Biblical texts, and comparing them to these factors for other works like those of Homer, Virgil and Plato, tell us something very interesting. There is far, far greater manuscript support for the Biblical texts than there is for any other ancient writing. There isn't even a close second.

We have around 24,000 ancient copies, either partial or complete, of the New Testament. About 5600 of those are in Greek, the language the NT was originally written in, and provide us with the best comparisons. What ancient text comes in second, then? That would be Homer's "Iliad", of which we have 643 ancient copies in the original language, and is generally considered to be the most well-preserved non-Biblical text.

And how soon after the original were they written? For the New Testament, the earliest fragment would be a difference of 30 years for a part of John's Gospel. For most texts, we're talking about 150-200 years between the writing and the earliest copies. For Homer's "Iliad", the earliest fragment dates to about 500 years after it was written.

As for comparing the different copies, if we do so for the New Testament writings, we find them to be 99.5% similar, with the only differences being primarily in wording (like saying "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"), and not any differences in actual meaning.

Like I said, the New Testament writings are 99.5% similar between ancient copies. For Homer's "Iliad", it's only 95%.

kingdavid8.com...

Hope it helps. The New Testament we have is the one that was written.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OldSchoolMom
 


You can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. You can't convince people that abortion is murder, the subject of this thread, through scripture.

If your beliefs and your religion work for you, fine. If you think abortion is a sin, fine, don't have one. But you can't use the Bible to force your religious views onto the secular community to prevent others from making choices about their lives and their bodies.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldSchoolMom

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:



I'd ask you to tell me more but when I went to Timothy to read into it I found this:



1 Timothy 2:12

New International Version (NIV)

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.


I'd appreciate it if you were a little more obedient to the Bible, ma'am.


But seriously, this got old so long ago. Biblical scripture is worthless for argument; develop new methods.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Leaving aside the Bible for a second, look at the legal side of this. Please allow me some unconnected thoughts.

1) Regardless of your opinion about the outcome, Roe v. Wade is considered to be the worst example of legal reasoning in modern times by nearly everyone. That is usually brushed aside, the feeling is "It doesn't matter how they reached the decision, I like the results."

2) Prior to the abortion cases, the law was clear and easily understood. Now it is neither. Consider that laws say that if you kick a pregnant woman, and her child dies, you are guilty of murder. That has no legal or logical consistency.

3) Criminal law has traditionally been left to the states, not always, but usually. In the decision the court eliminated the rights of states in this matter. Again, it is a case of liking the results, regardless of how obtained.

4) Fathers have no final say in whether their unborn child lives or dies. Even divorced dads usually have some rights with their children.

5) Kermit Gosnell



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





1) Regardless of your opinion about the outcome, Roe v. Wade is considered to be the worst example of legal reasoning in modern times by nearly everyone.


I tend to agree as a pro-choice, Roe vs. Wade is more like a placeholder, they even stated that they dont intend to answer the hard questions of when personhood begins or resolve the controversy. But eventually, we will have to get to it, if not for any other reason then for the fact that as medical science progresses, viability will be sooner and sooner thus opening up all of pregnancy for abortion bans.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

Dear Maslo,

You've given me a frightening thought. What if society keeps increasing the support for abortion on demand through schools, the various media, and government policies, so that, say 40 years from now, only a few scattered people believe:

But eventually, we will have to get to it,

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Unless you are the 'husband' you don't have a say in the matter.

END-OF-DISCUSSION!!!





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join