Abortion= WRONG

No discussion of this subject that gets down to issues of God or Satan have any merit what-so-ever, either logically or legally.

What must be decided is where is a scientifically valid point to declare a woman (except in rare medical cases emergencies) forfeits her right of choice due to the virtual existance of a seperate being. Recognizing the the umbilical provides sustinance. The fact is there is an independant heart beating. An independant mind functioning, independant voluntary movement of appendages, etc.

I find the arguement legally that until the chord is cut there is no being a bit to extreme. Women have plenty of opportunity to make their decision far sooner and at a far less stage of development. It is incumbent on civilized society to enforce some limited control over the issue and not allow i.e. - Partial Birth Abortion as a convience of the right of choice but only for medical necessity.
 
Last edited:
banning partial birth abortion would outlaw necessary medical procedures in the third trimester when the mother and child's lives are in danger. so if a doctor performs it, she'll live but then might live in jail. a pba ban was just struck down as unconstitutional.
 
Swidishfish,

Please note that I stated likewise "Except in cases of medical emergency". That is "Partial Birth Abortion" should not be allowed just as a last minute planned parenthood process but reserved to when there are no options to protect the mother or for that matter to preclude the birth of an incomplete being that would have no possibility of a meaningful life.

I have edited my post to better clarify my position in that regard.
 
okinrus, your "moral fact" is not. What you claim as a given is interpretation and it flies in the face of what has been, is and what can be. I do believe that the scientific perspective is one that gives "righteous" moral guidance, importance of respecting shared needs, shared understanding and furthering abilities to increase our common welfare.

I find that many who profess religious righteousness are actually coming from an existential stance, seeing themselves as separate from the rest of the world which ultimately does not matter as what matters is where one goes after death, what matters is whether or not some priest sanctions you as a part of the chosen few. Churches, tax-exempt and therefore state sanctioned anti-humanist disorganisations, will give you the tools to be the pawns of the oligarchies; dupes, slaves, sacrificial lambs, people who will not stand up for their own rights let alone the rights of others. In my eyes Jesus was a humanist so the state subverted the following to make it anti-humanist, to make his crucifixion the example to follow rather than his belief that we are all of one family. Christianity is the anti-Christ. Christianity is taking his name in vain.

To believe that "Abortion = Wrong" is to be adhering to a fantasy that is not based in seeing the world for what it is. Abortion has and continues to happen. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here. Abortion is a life saving natural part of existence. With intelligence we can facilitate its benefits over its drawbacks. With ascription to fantasy such as this "Abortion = Wrong" discombobulation, violence is unavoidable.

The information explosion continues. Many are scared, frightened by what they see as a meaningless and dangerous existence. They hide within religion as if it were their mother's skirts. There they remain as dependents, not offering any real solutions to any real problems, but rather being a part of the problem, unaware humanity. We are going to have to BREAK from these nightmares, this fantasy state of no accountability if we are to become a long lived species. We will need to recognize our own humanity and stand up for that rather than some denigrating bible black horror scenario.

You have no righteousness here to defend. You could state that the earth is flat and be no more and no less cartoonsville.
 
okinrus, your "moral fact" is not. What you claim as a given is interpretation and it flies in the face of what has been, is and what can be. I do believe that the scientific perspective is one that gives "righteous" moral guidance, importance of respecting shared needs, shared understanding and furthering abilities to increase our common welfare.
Click to expand...
I don't think science offers us any moral guidance.

I find that many who profess religious righteousness are actually coming from an existential stance, seeing themselves as separate from the rest of the world which ultimately does not matter as what matters is where one goes after death, what matters is whether or not some priest sanctions you as a part of the chosen few.
Click to expand...
I've never professed religious righteousness. All I've stated on this thread was that it was meaningless to judge an argument by such a thing.

To believe that "Abortion = Wrong" is to be adhering to a fantasy that is not based in seeing the world for what it is. Abortion has and continues to happen. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Explain how without abortion we would not be "here" and how this is different from the similar comment that without death we would not be "here."

With ascription to fantasy such as this "Abortion = Wrong" discombobulation, violence is unavoidable.
Click to expand...
What kind of violence do you suggests for those who continue in this fantansy?
 
yeah i'm always pretty iffy about religious people who claim they are morally superior on a religious basis. i know people who follow all the rules to the letter and i think they're terribly immoral. do you kill anything or steal it's milk or eggs? do you support gross violations of human rights through consumerism? do you destroy the earth by your mere presense and not care? do you look the other way and allow politicians run your country without morals? do you pretend not to see the hungry/needy/abused?
my list of commandments is different than the ones i learned in sunday (saturday at my church actually) school. your morals don't mean anything to me. in my eyes, you're a pig. if i were to believe in a god, in my god's eyes you are also a pig. oink baby!
Click to expand...
No one has suggested any form of religious righteousness. This is understandable, though. Through all that water a fish would see quite a distorted pig.
 
cma said:
Don't have sex just for fun if you are potentially and premeditationaly killing someone.
Click to expand...
What about masturbating? Aren’t you wasting potential life, by your way of thinking, when you spank the monkey? I mean the sperm could have been used to create life rather than being destined for the scrunched up tissue in the wastebasket.
 
What about masturbating?
Click to expand...

Take it up with old-school Catholics is my first response, but that's more of a Monty Python third-world joke than anything else.

Beyond that, God didn't so much kill Onan for wasting seed so much as he did for direct disobedience. Onan was supposed to knock up the widow of his dead brother, apparently according to custom.
 
A little bit of research shows me that anywhere from 15% to 25% of all pregnancies are aborted naturally often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant. This is something that probably occurs in most mammals including the progenitors of Homo saps. This curtailing of gene combination experiments was an integral part of evolution. Without it, things would have been quite different. I doubt if humanity could have even come about if a major aspect of natural selection hadn't functioned.

Consider the occurence of in vitro fertilization. It can make the abortion of a non-fertilized egg through normal menstruation avoidable. I understand that many religions consider such as wrong, fertilization outside of the uterus. You can't have both. If abortion is wrong, in vitro fertilization is right. If in vitro fertilization is wrong then abortion is right.

If you ascribe to the idea that all abortion is wrong then this demonstrated nonsense might just be associated with the further bafoonery of denying evolution. It is not my responsibility to save anyone from the institutionalized insanity that denies science. But it would be good to get it out in the open. If you ascribe to "might makes right" serving dehumanization, to removing the kinship that evolution shows us to have with all humans, with all life, then there is no point in trying to reason with you. You will go on with your sinning, with your crusade to lessen human liberty and increase suffering. Be that way. "No eternal reward can forgive us for wasting the dawn."
 
This is a hot topic for sure. Abortion should always be legal no matter what. People think its cruel to kill an offspring before its even born. We as human should be able to decide if being pregnet is something that we want. Its not like we need the baby to survive as a species unless everybody was doing it and the overall population was decreasing. Then it would be a problem or would it. The fetus's that are being aborted are just like cows and chickens except that the baby's aren't used in food products, unless there is some blackmarket for aborted baby meat. And after a certain developement stage in the pregnancy it shouldn't be concidered because the hassel and risks. Just wait till the baby is born and have it put to sleep or put it up for adoption. But i still go with if you don't want to give birth to a baby you shouldn't have to if you don't think your ready or even if u just feel like aborting the baby. Might be cruel to do it but there is more cruel things in this world that we can't stop from happening. A faith and all the crap can go out the window for all i care when it comes to this. This is between you and the baby(goes to the women).Do what u will though, shouldn't be a big deal.
 
tiassa said:
Take it up with old-school Catholics is my first response, but that's more of a Monty Python third-world joke than anything else.

Beyond that, God didn't so much kill Onan for wasting seed so much as he did for direct disobedience. Onan was supposed to knock up the widow of his dead brother, apparently according to custom.
Click to expand...

Which only further establishes the absurdity of taking the Bible seriously. A guy who married his widowed sister-in-law today would be considered pretty fuckin' sketchy, not a devout follower of God.
 
okinrus: "I don't think science offers us any moral guidance."

I noticed that with your first post. I suggest you just don't know enough. I just watched Professor Spencer Wells and his tracing of genetic traits to determine how the first populations spread around the globe and when. The finding is that racism is mythology. We are all closely related. One man in africa was at one time our common ancester. We now have direct evidence of the genetic similarities we share with other organisms. Only with ardent use of science can we see beyond the cultural, philosophical, religious, linguistic and geographical barriers that more in the past and still now limit us to biased perspective. If you don't see any moral guidance there I'm afraid you're immersed in the propaganda cloud that engulfs and holds many to compromise even their own best interests. Very simply put, science is the art of sharing information. It is a means for determining the trustworthiness of claims with direct repeatable evidence with weighing of the consensus of peers as well as strict logic, reason and mathematics. If you don't attribute value to this endeavor then I'm afraid you are a servant to forces that do not hold your welfare or the welfare of others or life in general in high regard.

Okinrus: "I've never professed religious righteousness. All I've stated on this thread was that it was meaningless to judge an argument by such a thing."

Hmmm, I see your disregard for science even pertains to your finding it fine to present misinformation about what you have stated here. Anyone can go back, not too far as it became a quoted subject of one of my recent posts and see that you are not being accurate about your own communications. Science be damned, huh? Why should I attempt to communicate with someone who denys and lies about their own statements? Have you no decency?

okinrus: "I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Explain how without abortion we would not be "here" and how this is different from the similar comment that without death we would not be "here."

I did some research and see that claims exist with some pretty substantial evidence that 15 to 25% of all pregnancies abort naturally with the woman usually not even realizing she was pregnant. This has obviously been a part of the natural selection process for creating humanity. It was probably significant in the evolution of past species, some within the paths that led to humans. I bet some of those were where the fertilized egg attaches to a fillopian tube rather than the uteran wall, creating great danger to the woman. Many abortions done in hospitals today are just for such conditions. Without natural abortions I suspect that women's mortality would be higher, disease and other violence, perhaps infanticide, would be increased. I truly doubt if evolution could of made us without it.

As far as "how this is different from the similar comment that without death we would not be here." I would suggest there are time and physical differences aplenty. I would also suggest that this second question demonstrates an existential exclamation of "whatever." Are we born to just die and nothing in between matters? If you truly can't see the differences then something must be blinding you, perhaps preconceptions planted by long and tricky propaganda subjugation. It happens. Look out for that anomie, bro! It can be a real killer of potential.
 
I noticed that with your first post. I suggest you just don't know enough. I just watched Professor Spencer Wells and his tracing of genetic traits to determine how the first populations spread around the globe and when. The finding is that racism is mythology. We are all closely related. One man in africa was at one time our common ancester. We now have direct evidence of the genetic similarities we share with other organisms. Only with ardent use of science can we see beyond the cultural, philosophical, religious, linguistic and geographical barriers that more in the past and still now limit us to biased perspective. If you don't see any moral guidance there I'm afraid you're immersed in the propaganda cloud that engulfs and holds many to compromise even their own best interests.
Click to expand...
Racism is caused primarily by jealousy and pride.

Very simply put, science is the art of sharing information. It is a means for determining the trustworthiness of claims with direct repeatable evidence with weighing of the consensus of peers as well as strict logic, reason and mathematics. If you don't attribute value to this endeavor then I'm afraid you are a servant to forces that do not hold your welfare or the welfare of others or life in general in high regard.
Click to expand...
Information does not in anyway determine how we decide based upon this information. Science created the atomic bomb, and it is also science that leaves us no answer to when to use it.

Anyone can go back, not too far as it became a quoted subject of one of my recent posts and see that you are not being accurate about your own communications. Science be damned, huh? Why should I attempt to communicate with someone who denys and lies about their own statements? Have you no decency?
Click to expand...
Then why don't you quote where I said "I have religious righteousness." All I said was that I do not have to prove my righteousness to you but to God.
 
"Once again, a bunch of (mostly) men, pontificating about a decision they'll never have to make." - Fraggle Rockers Wife
well excuse me for trying to learn, and teach other guys about what sort of advice they should give to their sisters, or girlfriends who are uncertain about whether to have an abortion of not

if you wanna claim that abortions are purely womens business, then you can hardly expect the male population to give a fuck about contraception, or even holding a chicks hand whilst shes pregnant, who cares, its not happening to us... right??

WRONG!!!

sorta a round about way of saying it, but guys do actually care about their loved ones, we dont want to see them having an unwanted pregnancy, nor do we want them to be unable to sleep at night because of guilt at having had an abortion
we have to decide which we think is the best idea for a situation, so that we can advise you chicks

also, if a feutus is a living creature, created by the union of a male and a female, the female doesnt have a right to kill it if the male desperately wants it to live (and yes, i know you have to go through pregnancy, which means you get to make most of the decision, but not all)
 
Women also forget they arnt the only ones that have to live with the decision, the man loses the possibility of a kid aswel/gets stuck with one he might not want.
Women want equal rights with everything else why shouldnt there be equal rights for the man to an unborn child?(should the couple disagree on the solution)
 
if they disagree, and are both equally strong with their POV's, then the chick gets to decide, because shes the one actually getting an abortion, or becomeing pregnant, but the guys opinion is important
 
I dont think either view is more important, if she wants it and he doesnt he can leave and never claim the kid as his own(no rights to it but no responsibility either), same for the women if the man wants it, it seems fair that way they both get what they want.
 
I don't have the time today to read this whole thread so forgive me if I say something that someone else has already covered.
When it comes to the subject of abortion I think the great Jay Mewes needs to be quoted:
(Whilst outside an abortion clinic, surrounded by pro-life types)
"Pro Choice? Fuck that! A woman's body is her own fucking business. We're just here to pick up loose women!"

The Flemster.
 
ditto to the flemster, i havent read EVERY post, ( most of them though)
the problem with abortion is that people think its murder right?

the anti-abortionists think that life begins at conception or some time before the baby is actually born, right?

pro-abortionists argue that they are not really alive until the birth.

why is it, do you think, that babies are born after 9 months?

it is cause that is when they are developed enough to be fit for entry to the world.

that means that they are NOT REALLY ALIVE, are they? if they were fit (hang on, even if they WERE alive before birth this still applies) for survival outside in the world theyd get born BEFORE 9 months.

is that not right?

or we could argue some more.... who wants to step up? against biology.

p.s. i recognize that by acting pro-abortionist here I am going up against biology as well. oooo lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top