Very simple argument against abortion

a reply to: Klassified

In the 21rst century, abortions should be at an all time low.

Ok.
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Klassified

In the 21rst century, abortions should be at an all time low.

Ok.
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

Thanks Phage. They are getting there, aren't they?

a reply to: rajas

All life is food for other life.

originally posted by: Thetan
Here is a very simple argument against abortion.

All intentional killing of innocent human beings is wrong.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

How about this. You believe whatever you want in your world and keep it in your world.

I'll do the same.

a reply to: rajas

unless of course, that life happens to be in a third world nation that has natural resources that russia and the usa are competing for, then well, bomb the hades out of them!!!

a young girl in brazil is raped by her father, or maybe it was step father, and became pregnant with twins. she was I believe nine years old. her doctors, the nurses, the mother, they all tried to get the courts to allow an abortion on the basis that she was just not developed enough to endure the pregnancy, and finally the abortion took place. The catholic church came out with it's reaction to the abortion, they excommunicated the mother, they excommunicated the medical staff, and heck they would have excommunicated the girl if it wasn't for the fact that she was so young...
but the man who endangered this small girls life wasn't excommunicated.....nope!!!
to some, it's a greater sin to try to save a young girl's life by ending a pregnancy that's endangering her than it is to put her in that dangerous situation to begin with by molesting her!!!

sometimes, abortion is oh so wrong, but there are also other times when it's the right thing to do..... and who is better to judge when it is the best course to take than the mother and her doctor?? you??? the gov't?? the courts?? the religions??? the daddies???

life is sacred, till it's born, then all bets are off!

a reply to: Aazadan
Which premise/premises do you disagree with and why?

originally posted by: Thetan
Here is a very simple argument against abortion.

All intentional killing of innocent human beings is wrong.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

One exception. If the mothers life was to be in imminent danger if she were to have the child, then the killing of the fetus would be a foreseen variable, but not the intent.

I don't think anyone has ever thought of it that way.. /sarcasm

So what if people kill the next Albert Einstein, Ghandi, Jesus, or world changing thinker... it's their right to murder the unborn. Plus there are too many people around as it is, all nasty horrible pieces of work.

We should be employing post-natal abortions on some people...

I think I used the /sarcasm line a little too early...

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Aazadan
Which premise/premises do you disagree with and why?

That's not important. Why do you think the life of the mother is worth more than the life of the baby?

originally posted by: watchitburn
What makes human life more important than any other animal?

Wouldn't making an omelette constitute abortion? Where's the outrage over egg McMuffins?

An egg that you eat is not fertilised.

But you're right. People will not know the difference and use it anyway.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Thetan

What about if the innocent human being came about via the intentional raping of an innocent female?

Does not that innocent female rape victim get a say in whether she wants to carry a rapists baby because she certainly did not get a choice in whether or not to become pregnant in the first place?

The baby is not a rapist baby, s/he is an innocent victim just as the mother is.

to accuse the baby of some crime deserving of death is as abhorrent as the rape itself...

but two wrongs and all...

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Abortion is not something that can be accepted by everyone, i personally am against it,but i will defend the right for women to have the choice.

And that choice is between a women and her doctor.

Best answer !!

It's got nothing to do with me, you or anyone not involved. It is a deeply personal thing and no religious or ethical nosey parker has any right to dictate what someone else does.

but, if I were involved, I would fight till my last breath to save my child.

a reply to: Thetan

Premise 1: Impractical and untrue in many but not all cases. Specifically, someone intent on doing deadly harm to an innocent other needs to be stopped with equal or greater deadly force.

Premise 2: Utterly untrue. 50% of all fertilized human eggs are naturally "aborted."

So ...

False, false, ergo false.

a reply to: Aazadan

It is important as it's the primary focus of the thread. Where did I say that the mothers life was more important? Under the conditions in which the mothers life was in imminent danger it would be her prerogative of whether to abort the fetus or not; it would not be compulsory one way or the other. The reason she possesses this prerogative is because the abortion of the fetus would be an act of self defense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Omelettes are made from unfertilized eggs which never were alive.

How about balut?

Pretty much supports my sarcastic quip about post natal abortions....

Some humans are perversely disgusting creatures.. It's not enough that we have food around already, but the depravity of something so vile causes such excitation and eagerness..

a reply to: laminatedsoul
Your revulsion is nothing more than a cultural prejudice.

I supposed you think eating dog is also "depraved." I wouldn't do it unless under duress but in a great many cultures it is no big deal. In the Philippines, balut is food, like any other.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Aazadan

It is important as it's the primary focus of the thread. Where did I say that the mothers life was more important? Under the conditions in which the mothers life was in imminent danger it would be her prerogative of whether to abort the fetus or not; it would not be compulsory one way or the other. The reason she possesses this prerogative is because the abortion of the fetus would be an act of self defense.

So you want to legalize murder of ones child in self defense? That baby has no voice, why can the mother choose to abort it for her own sake? If she kills the baby it's dead. If the baby comes to term the mother won't always die.

a reply to: Gryphon66How is premise one impractical and untrue? Your argument against premise two is that since some human beings die from natural causes that it's okay to intentionally kill innocent human beings?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: laminatedsoul
Your revulsion is nothing more than a cultural prejudice.

I supposed you think eating dog is also "depraved." I wouldn't do it unless under duress but in a great many cultures it is no big deal. In the Philippines, balut is food, like any other.

Do we need to eat dog, or any form of exotic creatures? No. Do we need to eat dolphins and other animals that have shown intelligence? No.

We have, in the west, enough food to feed everyone, and in fact throw so much edible food away it's a crime. There is enough food in the East also to not starve, yet they're happy to hang a dog up, beat it while alive, blow torch it's fur off and then slowly boil it alive. Disgusting, and hardly prejudice.

It's not cultural prejudice. It's respect for the world I live in. I do not agree that every creature was put on this earth for me to do as I please with.

Or you or that fat slob sucking down duck embryos because it's cool and hip - hence the video. Which was not in the Philippines, as you can clearly see.


ETA - we've gone off topic... I apologise to the OP... sort of, the topic was never really going to keep on track anyway..

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Gryphon66How is premise one impractical and untrue? Your argument against premise two is that since some human beings die from natural causes that it's okay to intentionally kill innocent human beings?

Nope, I mean what I said.

I was very clear.

a reply to: AazadanBy definition legalizing murder is impossible. The mother has the prerogative to abort a fetus if the danger to herself is IMMINENT, the key word being "imminent." The mother wouldn't necessarily be aborting it for her own sake and she has the prerogative to abort it because it's an act of self defense.