The immorality of abortion

captaintyinknots
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

You must have missed the part where I explained that religion and God are not interchangeable (or was that a different thread?). God made man and man made religion in order to control other men.

Again you try and change definitions to fit what you believe. The belief that god made man is a religious belief.

Religious people follow religious doctrines, I did not make that up either.

CaptainHook

beegoodbees

CaptainHook

beegoodbees
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

No the unborn child's rights do not out-way those of anyone else. The child's rights are the same as anyone else s. Such as the right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one has the right to murder! No matter how small or helpless or voiceless the life is. Murder is murder.

I saw an interesting post on face book, it went like this. If you have an abortion you are still a mother. you are just the mother of a dead baby that you murdered.

Sounds right to me.

edit on 22-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

Fetus don't have rights because:
1. It doesn't have freedom to pursuit of happiness. (it's forced to be born and aborted. It doesn't give a say what the fetus wants).
2. You can't protect a fetus life without infringing women rights (consquence isn't a consent to another to override a body).
3. It doesn't exist in our world, only inside a womb.
4. It's basically like a parasite (pardon for my bluntness).
5. If the fetus were to have rights, then the fetus would be violating a women body. Therefore, the women has a right to defend herself against a fetus by law. Since no one can just take a body for it's own survive without a consent. Even if, the fetus dies in the end.

Murder: illegally killing.
Abortion is legal so, it can't be murder based on the legal standard. All you're doing is killing a fetus, not murdering a fetus.

edit on 24-10-2013 by CaptainHook because: (no reason given)

So Hitler Mao and Stalin Killed countless millions legally (according to their "laws"). Was that not murder.
Murder (I don't care what google says in this matter) is the killing of innocence. Legal or not.

Two separate meaning of murder. One is based in opinion and the other is based on legal.

Mother is innocent as well but you clearly would prefer to kill a mother and take away the mother rights (just like how Hitler took away all those jew rights, and killed them because they were condemn bad people) away all based on "fetus is so innocent" New flash. Fetus don't care if they're aborted nor do they suffer from abortion. Focus on children who actually are suffering, not cells (referring to early pregnancy). All abortion is doing is prevent a cell to live as a human(hood), not killing/murdering a human(hood).

edit on 28-10-2013 by CaptainHook because: (no reason given)

Thank you for you r speculations that are again being presented as fact. Or have you spoken to a fetus?

Not saving someone is not the same as killing someone but that is beside the point. In most cases a cesarian section could save both. If the fetus is killing the mother than take it out, (alive and in one piece) if it lives good, if not too bad that's life. I don't know of any circumstance where a mother would be in danger of losing her life where a cesarean not only could be done but definately would be done.

But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground.

boymonkey74
How many unwanted kids are there waiting for adoption? how much would all the extra babies cost the state?
Tell you what all you people who are anti abortion adopt some kids and when there are no unwanted kids you have earn't the right to tell people to stop having abortions.

How many parents are out there waiting to adopt is another way to look at it. There is a long line and a long wait. A lot of women choose abortion over adoption simply because being pregnant is inconvenient and so are stretch marks and cesarean scars.

reply to post by beegoodbees


In 2010 there were 408,425 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. I can assure you there are plenty of children waiting for loving homes already. Instead of presupposing why or why not a woman may want or need an abortion you could always adopt one of those foster children. It beats the hell out of pontificating on the internet from your ivory tower. It's always an easy thing to make statements regarding the morals and responsibility of others until you're forced into that corner and have no other way out.

beegoodbees

captaintyinknots
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

You must have missed the part where I explained that religion and God are not interchangeable (or was that a different thread?). God made man and man made religion in order to control other men.

Again you try and change definitions to fit what you believe. The belief that god made man is a religious belief.

Religious people follow religious doctrines, I did not make that up either.

The thought that god made man is a religious doctrine. Try and play with semantics all you want. Doesnt change it.

beegoodbees

boymonkey74
How many unwanted kids are there waiting for adoption? how much would all the extra babies cost the state?
Tell you what all you people who are anti abortion adopt some kids and when there are no unwanted kids you have earn't the right to tell people to stop having abortions.

How many parents are out there waiting to adopt is another way to look at it. There is a long line and a long wait. A lot of women choose abortion over adoption simply because being pregnant is inconvenient and so are stretch marks and cesarean scars.

Really? Care to provide first hand accounts?

I worked in the adoption system. You cant blow smoke up my hind quarters. It is a broken system, and one in which a kid has as much chance of ending up in prison as they do of getting adopted once they pass the age of 5.

beegoodbees
abortion was illegal in the U.S. at one time. There was no legal definition for a fetus being human or not at any given age at that time. So at that time was abortion murder or not?

If you say yes then your arguments make no sense. Because as I have pointed out, many bad people have murdered many people legally. Unless you want to argue that hitler wasn't a murderer (good luck with that).

If you say no then your arguments make no sense. You can't have it both ways. Either it was always murder or it was never murder and what is legal makes no difference in defining murder. It is a catch 22

nuff said.

edit on 29-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

Yes, by law it was murder back then but now it's not murder. I say it again "two different meaning of the word murder. One is opinion, and the other is based on legal". Back then, they didn't have the tech. that we have now. We have the better tech. to understand.

You're using murder as a term of opinion (switch can be made up with nothing and can change per person), not as a legal standard (made up by courts/government/president issue involving the law). Like the other person said "it was legal in that country but it wasn't legal international". Yes, by our morality it's wrong and murder based on our opinion, not based on law. I can say it was murder based on my subjective opinion but it was objectively stated as fact that it was legal back then.

You're missing the point between opinion, and legal. You can't argue with facts nor can you argue what Hitler did and what a mother has done as a comparable action.

Hitler brought suffering upon people. Toke their rights away, tortured them and such. By our morality of today as a group of humanity. It was murder based on a subjective view. We valued the lives of those Jewish people because they suffered, felt pain and such. They were living human(hood). We rationalize it as wrong. AkA because all those people who suffered.

Abortion doesn't involve anyone but mother based on a fetus lack of capability of emotional, physical, and mental to feel suffering, preserving suffering/pain. We rationalize that a fetus is just a clump pf cells growing into a human(hood). AKA because all fetus (early pregnancy) don't suffer nor knowledge what happening to them. They can't feel, think and such as all those jewish people.

It's incompatible to compare jewish victims, and fetuses. One feels and one doesn't. We value one who feels who can suffer over something that can't.

reply to post by beegoodbees

Thank you for you r speculations that are again being presented as fact. Or have you spoken to a fetus?

Obvious hypocrite is obvious.

Or have you spoken to god?

But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground.

No, we are talking about abortion. The 'convenience' claim is always thrown out there....it means nothing, without context.

beegoodbees

CaptainHook

beegoodbees

CaptainHook

beegoodbees
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

No the unborn child's rights do not out-way those of anyone else. The child's rights are the same as anyone else s. Such as the right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one has the right to murder! No matter how small or helpless or voiceless the life is. Murder is murder.

I saw an interesting post on face book, it went like this. If you have an abortion you are still a mother. you are just the mother of a dead baby that you murdered.

Sounds right to me.

edit on 22-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

Fetus don't have rights because:
1. It doesn't have freedom to pursuit of happiness. (it's forced to be born and aborted. It doesn't give a say what the fetus wants).
2. You can't protect a fetus life without infringing women rights (consquence isn't a consent to another to override a body).
3. It doesn't exist in our world, only inside a womb.
4. It's basically like a parasite (pardon for my bluntness).
5. If the fetus were to have rights, then the fetus would be violating a women body. Therefore, the women has a right to defend herself against a fetus by law. Since no one can just take a body for it's own survive without a consent. Even if, the fetus dies in the end.

Murder: illegally killing.
Abortion is legal so, it can't be murder based on the legal standard. All you're doing is killing a fetus, not murdering a fetus.

edit on 24-10-2013 by CaptainHook because: (no reason given)

So Hitler Mao and Stalin Killed countless millions legally (according to their "laws"). Was that not murder.
Murder (I don't care what google says in this matter) is the killing of innocence. Legal or not.

Two separate meaning of murder. One is based in opinion and the other is based on legal.

Mother is innocent as well but you clearly would prefer to kill a mother and take away the mother rights (just like how Hitler took away all those jew rights, and killed them because they were condemn bad people) away all based on "fetus is so innocent" New flash. Fetus don't care if they're aborted nor do they suffer from abortion. Focus on children who actually are suffering, not cells (referring to early pregnancy). All abortion is doing is prevent a cell to live as a human(hood), not killing/murdering a human(hood).

edit on 28-10-2013 by CaptainHook because: (no reason given)

Thank you for you r speculations that are again being presented as fact. Or have you spoken to a fetus?

Not saving someone is not the same as killing someone but that is beside the point. In most cases a cesarian section could save both. If the fetus is killing the mother than take it out, (alive and in one piece) if it lives good, if not too bad that's life. I don't know of any circumstance where a mother would be in danger of losing her life where a cesarean not only could be done but definately would be done.

But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground.

edit on 29-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

Or have you spoken to a fetus? "
That's the worse agruement ever. We know that the fetus/embryo lacks capability of to speak, feel, and many other things. So, for that i can say " fetus aren't human(hood)" and "they don't care if they're aborted".

"Not saving someone is not the same as killing someone but that is beside the point. In most cases a cesarian section could save both. If the fetus is killing the mother than take it out, (alive and in one piece) if it lives good, if not too bad that's life. I don't know of any circumstance where a mother would be in danger of losing her life where a cesarean not only could be done but definately would be done."

*face slam* Fetus don't have feelings, emotions and anything to state they're human(hood). A fetus can't survive under certain amount of time. If you abort a 8 week fetus. It will die with 0% possibility of surviving. Take out a 7 month infant then you have the high possibility of it surviving. Fetus don't consider at least 50% of possibility of surviving outside a womb is by mid to over mid of pregnancy. Majority are aborted before that happens. It far to dangerous to have a late-term abortion (usually only used for health problems). Guess what? if the infant is born pre-maturely. The fetus are at higher risk of complications (like autism, down syndrome and such). Not only that, they're not promised that they will life to old age.

Here, let me tell you of alll the side effects during and after pregnancy.
www.thelizlibrary.org...

Now let me give you the side effects of pre-mature birth.
www.livestrong.com...
www.ehow.com...

Abortion is like choosing to preserve a life or not.


"But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground."

I do have higher morality ground (int his situation) because my statements are based on facts switch is objective. You're basing morality on nothing then your emotions.

It's not convenience to have a fetus be born with mental issues, living for a year or two and much other problems (like property for example). No future infants deserve a life of abandonment, poverty and such. Abortion can prevent all those things before any sever happens.

Regardless if it's out of convenience. Their is no right to take a body without permission regardless how it happened. Fetus isn't human(hood) nor do they care if they're aborted. The mother knows best what will happen and how the fetus will live. Not you, nor me. They have the ability to understand how their fetus will live. That should be all the reason for you for them to have the choice.

All your opinion is nothing but perspective on your own personal feelings, not based on what's in front of you.

(also, have i ever told you that i'm a pro-life independently? Through humanity, i'm pro-choice.

How can you say?
I believe abortion would be wrong for me but i believe people deserve a choice to have an abortion or not regardless of how i feel about it.)

captaintyinknots
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Thank you for you r speculations that are again being presented as fact. Or have you spoken to a fetus?

Obvious hypocrite is obvious.

Or have you spoken to god?

But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground.

No, we are talking about abortion. The 'convenience' claim is always thrown out there....it means nothing, without context.

I think she/he won't understand any facts we given that person. Honestly, just seems to think her/his close minded.

CaptainHook

captaintyinknots
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Thank you for you r speculations that are again being presented as fact. Or have you spoken to a fetus?

Obvious hypocrite is obvious.

Or have you spoken to god?

But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground.

No, we are talking about abortion. The 'convenience' claim is always thrown out there....it means nothing, without context.

I think she/he won't understand any facts we given that person. Honestly, just seems to think her/his close minded.

Its a little sad, honestly, to see someone continually try and attack factual arguments as opinion, while trying to pass religious belief off as fact.

I dont even know how to debate that this of (lack of) logic....

captaintyinknots

CaptainHook

captaintyinknots
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Thank you for you r speculations that are again being presented as fact. Or have you spoken to a fetus?

Obvious hypocrite is obvious.

Or have you spoken to god?

But that is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about convenience. Some women don't want scars or stretchmarks because they are inconvenient just like a baby, so don't pretend to have any high moral ground.

No, we are talking about abortion. The 'convenience' claim is always thrown out there....it means nothing, without context.

I think she/he won't understand any facts we given that person. Honestly, just seems to think her/his close minded.

Its a little sad, honestly, to see someone continually try and attack factual arguments as opinion, while trying to pass religious belief off as fact.

I dont even know how to debate that this of (lack of) logic....

>.> if s/he rejects what i said (with link supporting) then s/he clearly won't ever change or such. I use to be like her/him. "abortion is murder! argggggh"

beegoodbees

boymonkey74
How many unwanted kids are there waiting for adoption? how much would all the extra babies cost the state?
Tell you what all you people who are anti abortion adopt some kids and when there are no unwanted kids you have earn't the right to tell people to stop having abortions.

If you don't want babies, Don't have sex. Making babies is the purpose of sex.. Sure sex feels good but it feels good in order to encourage us to have babies and keep our race alive.

Sounds like someone is a prude. >.> Today in age. Sex is used to get closer to your partner and used for pleasure (hint the protection). You can't stop people from having sex, even if it were to become illegal. People will have sex. It's in our nature. To lower the amount of pregnancies is sex education and easier access to condoms/birth control.

captaintyinknots

beegoodbees

captaintyinknots
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

You must have missed the part where I explained that religion and God are not interchangeable (or was that a different thread?). God made man and man made religion in order to control other men.

Again you try and change definitions to fit what you believe. The belief that god made man is a religious belief.

Religious people follow religious doctrines, I did not make that up either.

The thought that god made man is a religious doctrine. Try and play with semantics all you want. Doesnt change it.

Unless God did make man, then it is science. According to you Einstein was religious. Of course he was not.

peter vlar
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

In 2010 there were 408,425 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. I can assure you there are plenty of children waiting for loving homes already. Instead of presupposing why or why not a woman may want or need an abortion you could always adopt one of those foster children. It beats the hell out of pontificating on the internet from your ivory tower. It's always an easy thing to make statements regarding the morals and responsibility of others until you're forced into that corner and have no other way out.

Compared to how many parents looking to adopt? A one sided statistic, pretty weak. Every thing else you said is conjecture and not worthy of response.

captaintyinknots

beegoodbees

boymonkey74
How many unwanted kids are there waiting for adoption? how much would all the extra babies cost the state?
Tell you what all you people who are anti abortion adopt some kids and when there are no unwanted kids you have earn't the right to tell people to stop having abortions.

How many parents are out there waiting to adopt is another way to look at it. There is a long line and a long wait. A lot of women choose abortion over adoption simply because being pregnant is inconvenient and so are stretch marks and cesarean scars.

Really? Care to provide first hand accounts?

I worked in the adoption system. You cant blow smoke up my hind quarters. It is a broken system, and one in which a kid has as much chance of ending up in prison as they do of getting adopted once they pass the age of 5.

I am sure you had a point but you must have forgotten to say what it was. That 50 percent that you say wind up in prison, I guess it is your stance that they should have been aborted. So lets just sentence them to death to correct the problem.

CaptainHook

beegoodbees
abortion was illegal in the U.S. at one time. There was no legal definition for a fetus being human or not at any given age at that time. So at that time was abortion murder or not?

If you say yes then your arguments make no sense. Because as I have pointed out, many bad people have murdered many people legally. Unless you want to argue that hitler wasn't a murderer (good luck with that).

If you say no then your arguments make no sense. You can't have it both ways. Either it was always murder or it was never murder and what is legal makes no difference in defining murder. It is a catch 22

nuff said.

edit on 29-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

Yes, by law it was murder back then but now it's not murder. I say it again "two different meaning of the word murder. One is opinion, and the other is based on legal". Back then, they didn't have the tech. that we have now. We have the better tech. to understand.

You're using murder as a term of opinion (switch can be made up with nothing and can change per person), not as a legal standard (made up by courts/government/president issue involving the law). Like the other person said "it was legal in that country but it wasn't legal international". Yes, by our morality it's wrong and murder based on our opinion, not based on law. I can say it was murder based on my subjective opinion but it was objectively stated as fact that it was legal back then.

You're missing the point between opinion, and legal. You can't argue with facts nor can you argue what Hitler did and what a mother has done as a comparable action.

Hitler brought suffering upon people. Toke their rights away, tortured them and such. By our morality of today as a group of humanity. It was murder based on a subjective view. We valued the lives of those Jewish people because they suffered, felt pain and such. They were living human(hood). We rationalize it as wrong. AkA because all those people who suffered.

Abortion doesn't involve anyone but mother based on a fetus lack of capability of emotional, physical, and mental to feel suffering, preserving suffering/pain. We rationalize that a fetus is just a clump pf cells growing into a human(hood). AKA because all fetus (early pregnancy) don't suffer nor knowledge what happening to them. They can't feel, think and such as all those jewish people.

It's incompatible to compare jewish victims, and fetuses. One feels and one doesn't. We value one who feels who can suffer over something that can't.

The truth is you have no idea at what point a clump of cells begins to feel or think. Your brain is a clump of cells yet it thinks. People who defend killing babies by saying "they aren't babies yet" are in fact the ones who are changing definitions to suit their wants and beliefs. A fetus is an unborn what?

We are all just clumps of cells.

beegoodbees

peter vlar
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

In 2010 there were 408,425 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. I can assure you there are plenty of children waiting for loving homes already. Instead of presupposing why or why not a woman may want or need an abortion you could always adopt one of those foster children. It beats the hell out of pontificating on the internet from your ivory tower. It's always an easy thing to make statements regarding the morals and responsibility of others until you're forced into that corner and have no other way out.

Compared to how many parents looking to adopt? A one sided statistic, pretty weak. Every thing else you said is conjecture and not worthy of response.

No, you are simply ignoring or disregarding the point of my "one sided stat". you demand that all unwanted children be born with no regard to the host body or their will. You make this demand at a rather high cost, nearly half a million unwanted children stuffed into foster homes until they hit age 18 and are cut loose by the state. after that point they have no support system in place, nobody to call for help or advice, nobody to instill proper morals into them. You're stance on this is based entirely in selfishness with no regard to the outcome as long as those children are born. As for the alleged conjecture of the remainder of my reply... None there. Are you actively pursuing adoption of a foster child? I'm guessing no and that the soap box upon which you stand spouting off your self pious homilies is beginning to falter under the burden of your inability to reconcile the fact that you demand women in situations you can never grasp be forced to birth a child they either don't want or can't take care of while nobody else is willing to undertake the burden either. The fact is that you ARE pontificating and making easy statements while sitting online but not doing anything to actually change the situation or help it. If that's Christianity get me the number for Anton LaVey ASAP. The Church of Satan has a more humanistic view of the world than most "Christians" ever will from behind their rose colored glasses because those poor bastards stuck in foster care are often the luckier ones who didn't have to suffer abuse from a parent that never wanted them there and resents them.

reply to post by FreeMason


Pay real close attention to my analogy.

Could it not be said that the ability for one person to dominate the thoughts and actions of another is closely akin to slavery?
We all know slavery is immoral an is against the law in the United States.
If this is in any stretch of the imagination true, then not allowing a woman to have control of her own health decisions as they impact her own body, by extension, could be considered a form of slavery.
Now with this in mind tell me how you are so moral when making any such decision for someone other than your self.

I am not saying abortion is right or that I agree with it being done. I saying no one has the right to "in slaving" a woman who has the right to make her own decisions about what she wants to do with her own body.

beegoodbees

CaptainHook

beegoodbees
abortion was illegal in the U.S. at one time. There was no legal definition for a fetus being human or not at any given age at that time. So at that time was abortion murder or not?

If you say yes then your arguments make no sense. Because as I have pointed out, many bad people have murdered many people legally. Unless you want to argue that hitler wasn't a murderer (good luck with that).

If you say no then your arguments make no sense. You can't have it both ways. Either it was always murder or it was never murder and what is legal makes no difference in defining murder. It is a catch 22

nuff said.

edit on 29-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

Yes, by law it was murder back then but now it's not murder. I say it again "two different meaning of the word murder. One is opinion, and the other is based on legal". Back then, they didn't have the tech. that we have now. We have the better tech. to understand.

You're using murder as a term of opinion (switch can be made up with nothing and can change per person), not as a legal standard (made up by courts/government/president issue involving the law). Like the other person said "it was legal in that country but it wasn't legal international". Yes, by our morality it's wrong and murder based on our opinion, not based on law. I can say it was murder based on my subjective opinion but it was objectively stated as fact that it was legal back then.

You're missing the point between opinion, and legal. You can't argue with facts nor can you argue what Hitler did and what a mother has done as a comparable action.

Hitler brought suffering upon people. Toke their rights away, tortured them and such. By our morality of today as a group of humanity. It was murder based on a subjective view. We valued the lives of those Jewish people because they suffered, felt pain and such. They were living human(hood). We rationalize it as wrong. AkA because all those people who suffered.

Abortion doesn't involve anyone but mother based on a fetus lack of capability of emotional, physical, and mental to feel suffering, preserving suffering/pain. We rationalize that a fetus is just a clump pf cells growing into a human(hood). AKA because all fetus (early pregnancy) don't suffer nor knowledge what happening to them. They can't feel, think and such as all those jewish people.

It's incompatible to compare jewish victims, and fetuses. One feels and one doesn't. We value one who feels who can suffer over something that can't.

The truth is you have no idea at what point a clump of cells begins to feel or think. Your brain is a clump of cells yet it thinks. People who defend killing babies by saying "they aren't babies yet" are in fact the ones who are changing definitions to suit their wants and beliefs. A fetus is an unborn what?

We are all just clumps of cells.

You are very ignorant. Do some research because clearly you have not. You don't know anything about fetus development during pregnancy (clearly), nor did you do research in general. You're basing on nothing, then emotional feelings.

Fetus begins to feel "fetal pain" is argued among scientist at 20 weeks but other say later. The nervous system starts to mature (aka the brain) at 7 months and on. (those are not subjective opinion, those are based on facts of evidence)

We're not changing anything. We are basing on evidence that's given in front of us but you on the other hand don't. We put what is human(hood) and what is not based on facts to accurately say when a fetus/embryo isn't considered yet a human(hood). Again, majority of abortion are taken place before any fetal pain, consciousness starts.

Understand what human(hood) is because clearly you don't.

Human(hood)-described as a animal who thinks, feels, sense, awareness, touch.
8 week embryo/fetus- cells forming into a human(hood).

It's not hard to understand the difference.

Ya, our brains are cells but guess what? My brain is work/active to let me feel anything, sense anything, move, touch and such. This is what makes me human(hood).

Fetus (early pregnancy) brains are not at full active nor does it work properly to make the fetus do anything.

If fetus were to feel, think, and such like a new born or a 7 month fetus (example) right from the beginning then we won't have this discussion.