What are your views on abortion?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Squashbuckler
Registered Senior Member
dont you?
Dont you have the same feeling when a man has his sexy face between your legs, loving every minute of it?
The jizz for the male is just "icing on the cake"
haha
thats a good one....
Dont you have the same feeling when a man has his sexy face between your legs, loving every minute of it?
The jizz for the male is just "icing on the cake"
haha
thats a good one....
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
"Dont you have the same feeling when a man has his sexy face between your legs, loving every minute of it? "
Only if he knows what he's doing. Actually I don't think it is exactly the same thing though I could be wrong. It would be presumptious for me to think I know what goes on in the head of a man (no pun intended).
Only if he knows what he's doing. Actually I don't think it is exactly the same thing though I could be wrong. It would be presumptious for me to think I know what goes on in the head of a man (no pun intended).
Squashbuckler
Registered Senior Member
.,
well.. i like to see my beautiful woman giving me pleasure, knowing that she wants to make me feel good.
That beautiful face with MY... i repeat... MY DICK in her mouth.
I never cum on her face though. I cannot bring myself to do it. its like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa.
(I really hate art, but had to use that example)
well.. i like to see my beautiful woman giving me pleasure, knowing that she wants to make me feel good.
That beautiful face with MY... i repeat... MY DICK in her mouth.
I never cum on her face though. I cannot bring myself to do it. its like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa.
(I really hate art, but had to use that example)
You don't need to survive any more than the unborn child.
A hypothetical statement. Murder and someone not conforming to one's ideas are quite different things.
I'm vile and dangerous. What's your point?
I said she cried for a week. So what? She cried for a week, a week and a half week what's your point? Get a life.
No, I'm refering to her loosing her errings.
Abortion is clearly and absolutely unethical as it is the destruction of a human being and the destruction of all the things he or she could have been and done, the taking away of his or her future and right toi live. It is as wrong as murder, perhaps more so, because the unborn baby is completely helpless and dependent on the mother.
The only circumstance under which it might be legitimate is if the mother's own life is at risk in carrying the baby.
The only circumstance under which it might be legitimate is if the mother's own life is at risk in carrying the baby.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
ele you need to go back and read all the posts in this thread. that sentiment has been argued a million times and doesnt hold water
shrubby, allow me to say, for me, the view i expressed is very
much supportable and it is my view. i thought i would offer my response to the initial question. Clearlt thi ssi something people have different views on and i believe i am entitled to hold mine. Pro-abortionists are entitled to hold theirs too, but it is one area where i find it difficult to believe humanity has allowed these events of destruction to occur. I dont think it should be someone's right legally to decide to commit murder on another human being i am afraid, but you keep whatever rationalisations you have for whatever position you are comfortable with on this issue and i will keep my solid and perceptive and i think completrely undeniable view.
I am unsubscribing from this thread if that is the kind of reaction i get towhat i see is little more than a statement of the facts. Abortion is killing.
much supportable and it is my view. i thought i would offer my response to the initial question. Clearlt thi ssi something people have different views on and i believe i am entitled to hold mine. Pro-abortionists are entitled to hold theirs too, but it is one area where i find it difficult to believe humanity has allowed these events of destruction to occur. I dont think it should be someone's right legally to decide to commit murder on another human being i am afraid, but you keep whatever rationalisations you have for whatever position you are comfortable with on this issue and i will keep my solid and perceptive and i think completrely undeniable view.
I am unsubscribing from this thread if that is the kind of reaction i get towhat i see is little more than a statement of the facts. Abortion is killing.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
well your response stated "clearly and absolutely unethical." apparently since so many people disagree with you, this absolutism of yours is "clearly and absolutely" flawed. you addressed no points of argument or evidence of your belief. you simply decreed every one who disagrees with you is unethical and a murderer. forgive me if i look upon your close mindedness with contention and apprehension
ele, it's fine to take whatever view you want on this issue. if you feel that passionately about it, great. it's what you do with it that matters. i do nothing. i feel that is the best use of my views. i'm not a fan of it, i wouldn't do it, i would offer other options first to a friend in need. but that's as far as it goes. if it leads to picketing clinics preventing people from entering or leaving or goes as far as killing doctors, a reevaluation of your beliefs is in order. women have their reasons. they have reasons i don't know about and they will do it anyway regardless of what i think, legal or not. the best thing to do is step back and zip your mouth.
don't mistake this for weakness. i'm usually a loudmouth about what i believe in. but in this case, i don't think my beliefs take precedence over the decision of a desperate woman.
don't mistake this for weakness. i'm usually a loudmouth about what i believe in. but in this case, i don't think my beliefs take precedence over the decision of a desperate woman.
I am against abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, life threatening birth for the mother, or severe fetal defect such anacephalisis. So, I voted that way, the second option, otherwise I am against abortion. It is just a way to avoid responsibility, I want to do whatever I want without any consequences.
People know what causes pregnancy. A woman has a choice to have sex or not, she knows she can get pregnant from it. A man has a choice to have sex or not, he knows he can get a woman pregnant from it. That is choice. A brutal killing of an unborn child to alleviate one's responsibility is not justified.
A man is just as responsible for a pregnancy as a woman, and they should be nailed hard for support.
Adoption is the better way to go.
People know what causes pregnancy. A woman has a choice to have sex or not, she knows she can get pregnant from it. A man has a choice to have sex or not, he knows he can get a woman pregnant from it. That is choice. A brutal killing of an unborn child to alleviate one's responsibility is not justified.
A man is just as responsible for a pregnancy as a woman, and they should be nailed hard for support.
Adoption is the better way to go.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But many men cannot be counted on for support of an unwanted child.
Adoption? There are too many unwanted children as it is (mostly minority children).
I don't understand why anyone would try and inhibit what another does with their own body. Those against abortion are free to have their babies, free to adopt (most dont). Why intefere with the choice of another you have no care nor concern for?
Adoption? There are too many unwanted children as it is (mostly minority children).
I don't understand why anyone would try and inhibit what another does with their own body. Those against abortion are free to have their babies, free to adopt (most dont). Why intefere with the choice of another you have no care nor concern for?
Last time I checked, women who did not have custody of their children were far more prone to not paying child support than men who don't have custody. It seems that women are far more prone to not wanting to care for a child if they don't hold it in their arms than men are.
That's also a strange thought, there are far more children being adopted from overseas, particularly in Asia than children in America. This is largely because of their being so much red-tape on our adoption system that it is very difficult for an orphan in America to get adopted. Oh but then, if we opened up the American adoption program, people will scream we aren't caring for forign children too. The point is that those who do are putting their morals where their mouth is and LIVING according to what they preach. The only reason people squirm about how they don't like the pro-life morals on the issues of adoption and abortion is beacuse by comparison their morals are based on self interest.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But of course you would agree that there are far less women who lose custody of their children than men right? Children who are won or lost in a custody battle are usually children who were wanted to begin with no matter the instability of one or both parents
I agree there is too much red tape in the adoption process but I do not believe for a moment that opening up adoption in the States would bring an opposition stating that people should adopt more from abroad.
You wrote: "The point is that those who do are putting their morals where their mouth is and LIVING according to what they preach. The only reason people squirm about how they don't like the pro-life morals on the issues of adoption and abortion is beacuse by comparison their morals are based on self interest."
Living in according to what they preach? Very good I agree, if someone is against abortion then they should not have one. Pro-choice is not an anti pro-life position, it is a position stating that a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to carry a fetus to term or not. If a woman chooses to have a child there is no pro-choice campaign to force her to have an abortion. A pro-life position forces their morals on others. Pro-choice does not advocate abortions for those who do not desire one, pro-life advocates would legally force a woman to carry to term whether she or not this is her preference. So again I ask the question, why are pro-lifers so concerned about choices women make concerning their own bodies? It is not their life, it is not their body, they have no stake in the outcome, they will not be around during nine months of forced pregnancy, they will not have to make choices concerning the life of an unwanted baby. What's in it for them other than controlling another's womb? Self-interest perhaps? A desire to play god in the life of others? It is in a woman's self-interest to decide what is best for her life, the fetus is not separate from her body or her life.
I agree there is too much red tape in the adoption process but I do not believe for a moment that opening up adoption in the States would bring an opposition stating that people should adopt more from abroad.
You wrote: "The point is that those who do are putting their morals where their mouth is and LIVING according to what they preach. The only reason people squirm about how they don't like the pro-life morals on the issues of adoption and abortion is beacuse by comparison their morals are based on self interest."
Living in according to what they preach? Very good I agree, if someone is against abortion then they should not have one. Pro-choice is not an anti pro-life position, it is a position stating that a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to carry a fetus to term or not. If a woman chooses to have a child there is no pro-choice campaign to force her to have an abortion. A pro-life position forces their morals on others. Pro-choice does not advocate abortions for those who do not desire one, pro-life advocates would legally force a woman to carry to term whether she or not this is her preference. So again I ask the question, why are pro-lifers so concerned about choices women make concerning their own bodies? It is not their life, it is not their body, they have no stake in the outcome, they will not be around during nine months of forced pregnancy, they will not have to make choices concerning the life of an unwanted baby. What's in it for them other than controlling another's womb? Self-interest perhaps? A desire to play god in the life of others? It is in a woman's self-interest to decide what is best for her life, the fetus is not separate from her body or her life.
Women almost by default gain custody of their children, no matter what the circumstances largely because of the old additude that children belong with their mother and she can take care of them better than men are. After all, it's the womans job to stay home and take care of her kids. You know, feminists don't say a thing about patriarticle additudes like this as long as they work to their advantage. Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that women are overrepresented in the number of dead-beat parents versus men. Yeah, women win over 90% of custody battles, but out of all the parental dead-beats, women are like 30%. It means that women PERIOD are far more likely not to pay child support if the man wins custody.
A wonderful utterment of classic rhetoric
The old slogan "Who decides? YOU decide" came from someone you might be interested in knowing turned Pro-Life. HIS name (not hers) is Bernard Nathanson, and he was one of the founders of NARAL. If you want to ask anyone what really goes on in the Abortion industry and feminist movement, you might also want to look up Jane Roe. Her real name is Norma McCorvey and she has FORMALLY renounced her affidavid for Roe vs. Wade as based on false truths. In fact, she did not write her statements, they were written by her lawyers who promised her an abortion at the end the trial - an abortion she not only never had but was DENIED by the pro-choice lawyers she was helping. So much for "choice."Biology defines life as any organism which grows, feeds, and has it's own genetic makeup. The DNA of each species is differnt from others, and thus is a unique identifying characteristic. Even if two species are 99% genetically similar, if they did not come from the same genome, they are not the same species. Reproduction at least in mammals occurs when the sperm and egg of two genetically differnt members of the same species are brought togeather. The result of the merging of DNA creates a new member of the species which is genetically similar to but not identical to either parent. The beginning of the division of the cells and forming of the fetus is the biological beginning of life. Sperm and egg are not members of the species. They have only 23 of the 46 chromismes each member of our species carries. Since the fetus is genetically differnt from the mother, it is NOT a part of her body. It is not a kidkney or a heart, or a lung. All of those organs are made of cells with the same basic DNA coding. It might be inside her body, it might be nurtured by her, but it is NOT a part of her collective living system. The fetus does not contribue to the functions which maintain her life.
Therefore, the fetus is a unique individual member of our species, by all biological and scientific definitions. Is a pig fetus still a pig? Is a chicken embryo still a chicken? Is a tadpole still a frog? Any other definition of what is human or not is based purely on subjective moral values, and subjective they are! The issue of wether someone is human or not has in the past been defined by race, age, color, national origin, religion, or issues of personal convenience. Human history as a whole is filled with examples of this. The idea that one genetically individual member of our species is the property of another based on circumstances of stature and wealth isn't exactly a new idea either.
Considering in the end how subjective and selfish humans are, would you dare say that any of us are WISE enough to choose a subjective definition for humanity? The current precidence set by Abortion has far more to it than just the self interests of women or men. It has to do with how we as humans base our decisions on how we reguard each other. Pro-choice says as well that it perfectly OK for one specific class of our species (women) to have the authority to decide which members of our species are human or not. If I take exact same motivation and apply it to a larger scale, you find a classic geo-political situation. Two indigenous peoples inhabit the same space. One is dependant upon the other somehow for it's survival, but the other is atonomous. Is it moral then, for the stronger culture to wipe out the dependant one as to whord all the resources that area holds? More than likely, the other culture retailiates and war ensues.
The only reason this doesn't apply to the unborn is because they are simply incapable of any kind of self defense. A child even newly born can cry out in distress at it's situation to alert others of it's peril. But strangely enough, most pro-choicers do not even mention this fact. It is because it highlights the key difference between a child born and a child unborn. Anyone can come to the aid of a child born. No one but mother can help the unborn.
Do any of you sleep well at night knowing that it is perfectly okay for your mother to have the right to decide if you had even been born or not? I am glad that my mothers morals do not make me need ask this question. Indeed, this very question is one the pro-choice movement doesn't want you to ask. They don't want you to know if your parents had abortions or not, and if you ask your parents, how will they answer? How can they tell you that you might have had an older sibling they decided not to have? How will they be able to in the end justify having you and not them? I actually know several friends who found out their parents had abortions and they ALL found themselves asking these same questions. No matter how a mother might justify it to herself, in the end those justifications are purely as subjective as any other argument or even gut emotional reaction.
In the end, the question isn't about murder or child support. It is a very ancient philosophical question we humans have asked for thousands of years. "What is it to be a human being?" Human philosophy is marred with personal bias, ego, and self interest. Self interest is the root of all the conflicts and evils in human history.
Biology by contrast is unbiased in it's findings, and biology states that fetuses are individual humans. Not one shread of personal ego or self interest is found in accepting this definition of humanity. It is therefore arguably, the best one available.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Quote: Therefore, the fetus is a unique individual member of our species, by all biological and scientific definitions. Is a pig fetus still a pig? Is a chicken embryo still a chicken? Is a tadpole still a frog? Any other definition of what is human or not is based purely on subjective moral values, and subjective they are! The issue of wether someone is human or not has in the past been defined by race, age, color, national origin, religion, or issues of personal convenience. Human history as a whole is filled with examples of this. The idea that one genetically individual member of our species is the property of another based on circumstances of stature and wealth isn't exactly a new idea either.
Property? Anything that is inside my womb is indeed my property. We are not speaking of an organism that can survive outside of a womans womb. As I have said before on this thread it is my opinion that the fetus is indeed alive and human, but that does not mean a woman should be forced to have an unwanted baby. The decision is hers alone because she alone is forced to care for and nurture the child while in the womb. For nine month it is HER responsibiltiy to not smoke, drink, or ingest anything that would harm the child, it is for her to eat well, rest well, and CARE for the child and endure massive physical changes. I cannot think of anything more monstrous than forcing a woman to undergo nine months of pregnancy against her will. YOur argument would make a womans womb society's property and not her own.
As for Nathanson: I don't really care what men think about abortion because it is none of their business. Why would Roe need her lawyers permission to have an abortion? Are you saying that Roe was forced to have an unwanted baby? If she has changed her views on abortion that is fine, she is free to make that decision for herself...just not for me. As abortion remains legal a woman needs no ones permission. Would you prefer women being slaves to their womb?
YOu wrote: Considering in the end how subjective and selfish humans are, would you dare say that any of us are WISE enough to choose a subjective definition for humanity? The current precidence set by Abortion has far more to it than just the self interests of women or men. It has to do with how we as humans base our decisions on how we reguard each other. Pro-choice says as well that it perfectly OK for one specific class of our species (women) to have the authority to decide which members of our species are human or not. If I take exact same motivation and apply it to a larger scale, you find a classic geo-political situation. Two indigenous peoples inhabit the same space. One is dependant upon the other somehow for it's survival, but the other is atonomous. Is it moral then, for the stronger culture to wipe out the dependant one as to whord all the resources that area holds? More than likely, the other culture retailiates and war ensues.
No abortion does not give authority to women to decide whether a child is human or not, of course it is human and of course it is alive, but that does not mean a woman should be forced to carry to term. Two indigenous people? We are not speaking of a people or a race or a culture but what usually is an underdeveloped seven inch fetus that could not survive a day outside of its mothers womb. Most abortions take place from six to eight weeks after the womans last period are you saying that this seven inch fetus should be given a bill of rights over those of the mother? What about the over night pill? Is this also killing to rid oneself of a potential fetus twenty-four to forty-eight hours after conception?
...and you are correct the fetus cannot scream in self-defence and would not have the physical development to do so. Its the mother screaming while giving birth to an unwanted child I am more concerned about.
You wrote: Do any of you sleep well at night knowing that it is perfectly okay for your mother to have the right to decide if you had even been born or not?
Absolutely! If she had I would not be around to consider the point so this question has no relevance. I think it would have been hell growing up with a mother who did not want to have me.
YOu wrote: No matter how a mother might justify it to herself, in the end those justifications are purely as subjective as any other argument or even gut emotional reaction.
She need not justify, it is her body her baby her decision and yes it is subjective.
You wrote: In the end, the question isn't about murder or child support. It is a very ancient philosophical question we humans have asked for thousands of years. "What is it to be a human being?" Human philosophy is marred with personal bias, ego, and self interest. Self interest is the root of all the conflicts and evils in human history.
Self-interest is not the root of all conflicts and evils one need only point towards: Religion, Greed, Self-righteousness. If you believe personal bias is wrong then why would you deny a woman the right to decide what happens to her body and her life?
You wrote: Biology by contrast is unbiased in it's findings, and biology states that fetuses are individual humans. Not one shread of personal ego or self interest is found in accepting this definition of humanity. It is therefore arguably, the best one available.
Of course the fetus is human and alive but that is not an argument against abortion. While the fetus is dependent of the mother for survival as parasite it is her choice what happens.
Prisoners on death row are also human but that argument has not saved them from Texas capital punishment.
Property? Anything that is inside my womb is indeed my property. We are not speaking of an organism that can survive outside of a womans womb. As I have said before on this thread it is my opinion that the fetus is indeed alive and human, but that does not mean a woman should be forced to have an unwanted baby. The decision is hers alone because she alone is forced to care for and nurture the child while in the womb. For nine month it is HER responsibiltiy to not smoke, drink, or ingest anything that would harm the child, it is for her to eat well, rest well, and CARE for the child and endure massive physical changes. I cannot think of anything more monstrous than forcing a woman to undergo nine months of pregnancy against her will. YOur argument would make a womans womb society's property and not her own.
As for Nathanson: I don't really care what men think about abortion because it is none of their business. Why would Roe need her lawyers permission to have an abortion? Are you saying that Roe was forced to have an unwanted baby? If she has changed her views on abortion that is fine, she is free to make that decision for herself...just not for me. As abortion remains legal a woman needs no ones permission. Would you prefer women being slaves to their womb?
YOu wrote: Considering in the end how subjective and selfish humans are, would you dare say that any of us are WISE enough to choose a subjective definition for humanity? The current precidence set by Abortion has far more to it than just the self interests of women or men. It has to do with how we as humans base our decisions on how we reguard each other. Pro-choice says as well that it perfectly OK for one specific class of our species (women) to have the authority to decide which members of our species are human or not. If I take exact same motivation and apply it to a larger scale, you find a classic geo-political situation. Two indigenous peoples inhabit the same space. One is dependant upon the other somehow for it's survival, but the other is atonomous. Is it moral then, for the stronger culture to wipe out the dependant one as to whord all the resources that area holds? More than likely, the other culture retailiates and war ensues.
No abortion does not give authority to women to decide whether a child is human or not, of course it is human and of course it is alive, but that does not mean a woman should be forced to carry to term. Two indigenous people? We are not speaking of a people or a race or a culture but what usually is an underdeveloped seven inch fetus that could not survive a day outside of its mothers womb. Most abortions take place from six to eight weeks after the womans last period are you saying that this seven inch fetus should be given a bill of rights over those of the mother? What about the over night pill? Is this also killing to rid oneself of a potential fetus twenty-four to forty-eight hours after conception?
...and you are correct the fetus cannot scream in self-defence and would not have the physical development to do so. Its the mother screaming while giving birth to an unwanted child I am more concerned about.
You wrote: Do any of you sleep well at night knowing that it is perfectly okay for your mother to have the right to decide if you had even been born or not?
Absolutely! If she had I would not be around to consider the point so this question has no relevance. I think it would have been hell growing up with a mother who did not want to have me.
YOu wrote: No matter how a mother might justify it to herself, in the end those justifications are purely as subjective as any other argument or even gut emotional reaction.
She need not justify, it is her body her baby her decision and yes it is subjective.
You wrote: In the end, the question isn't about murder or child support. It is a very ancient philosophical question we humans have asked for thousands of years. "What is it to be a human being?" Human philosophy is marred with personal bias, ego, and self interest. Self interest is the root of all the conflicts and evils in human history.
Self-interest is not the root of all conflicts and evils one need only point towards: Religion, Greed, Self-righteousness. If you believe personal bias is wrong then why would you deny a woman the right to decide what happens to her body and her life?
You wrote: Biology by contrast is unbiased in it's findings, and biology states that fetuses are individual humans. Not one shread of personal ego or self interest is found in accepting this definition of humanity. It is therefore arguably, the best one available.
Of course the fetus is human and alive but that is not an argument against abortion. While the fetus is dependent of the mother for survival as parasite it is her choice what happens.
Prisoners on death row are also human but that argument has not saved them from Texas capital punishment.
The fetus is not a thing in your own words but a human being. Despite this, for all intensive purposes, we are the property of our parents until we are 16. Slave holders also tried to say the same thing with lies like "we take care of them and they are dependant on us."
If abortion is morally alright, then is killing newborn babies also morally right. In Sparta, for example, they would let babies who looked weak die simply by letting them stay on a hill. Did they really kill the baby or was it nature who killed the baby? Isn't other human's besides the fetus dependant on other human beings? A parasite does not have to be within but can be outside. Can you murder parasites outside of you?
In the majority of cases it is the woman's choice to have sex. I'm not sure what your problem is with making a woman responsible for her own dicision.
You specifically stated that the fetus was a life so she is not deciding what happens to her life but to another's life.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Quote: The fetus is not a thing in your own words but a human being. Despite this, for all intensive purposes, we are the property of our parents until we are 16. Slave holders also tried to say the same thing with lies like "we take care of them and they are dependant on us."
A fetus is not a human being on its own like a 16 year old. A fetus is a part of the human host carrying it. Whatever the mother does so does the fetus, if the mother dies so does the fetus. A fetus cannot have an independent life that is not inextricably connected to its host-mother. Slaves and children do not fall into these catagories.
Quote: If abortion is morally alright, then is killing newborn babies also morally right. In Sparta, for example, they would let babies who looked weak die simply by letting them stay on a hill. Did they really kill the baby or was it nature who killed the baby? Isn't other human's besides the fetus dependant on other human beings? A parasite does not have to be within but can be outside. Can you murder parasites outside of you?
When a woman has an abortion it is not murder but an interuption in the development of a fetus. When a child is born it becomes an dependent member of the human race but it has life on its own, an exitstence of its own that is not dependent on the existence of its birth mother (in other words any person can care for it once it is born), this is not true of the fetus.
Quote: In the majority of cases it is the woman's choice to have sex. I'm not sure what your problem is with making a woman responsible for her own dicision.
She is responsible for her own decision that is why some choose abortion.
Quote: You specifically stated that the fetus was a life so she is not deciding what happens to her life but to another's life
The fetus is alive not yet a life with rights of its own. The fetus is a part of the mothers body and not independent of it. If a mother has decided that she does not choose to carry and care for this child then it is in her right to stop the continuing process.
Again I ask all of you pro-lifers, how does it affect you personally what a woman chooses to do with her body/her fetus? What does it take from you personally if a woman chooses to abort her own fetus? Why is it so important for you to intefere with a decision that does not affect you? I can understand it is against your own morality, I can understand if you find the decision repulsive, you are free to not have an abortion or suggest to your pregnant girlfriend or wife to not have an abortion, but why are you interested in forcing your beliefs on women whom you know not, care nothing about and where you do not have to live with the consequences?
A fetus is not a human being on its own like a 16 year old. A fetus is a part of the human host carrying it. Whatever the mother does so does the fetus, if the mother dies so does the fetus. A fetus cannot have an independent life that is not inextricably connected to its host-mother. Slaves and children do not fall into these catagories.
Quote: If abortion is morally alright, then is killing newborn babies also morally right. In Sparta, for example, they would let babies who looked weak die simply by letting them stay on a hill. Did they really kill the baby or was it nature who killed the baby? Isn't other human's besides the fetus dependant on other human beings? A parasite does not have to be within but can be outside. Can you murder parasites outside of you?
When a woman has an abortion it is not murder but an interuption in the development of a fetus. When a child is born it becomes an dependent member of the human race but it has life on its own, an exitstence of its own that is not dependent on the existence of its birth mother (in other words any person can care for it once it is born), this is not true of the fetus.
Quote: In the majority of cases it is the woman's choice to have sex. I'm not sure what your problem is with making a woman responsible for her own dicision.
She is responsible for her own decision that is why some choose abortion.
Quote: You specifically stated that the fetus was a life so she is not deciding what happens to her life but to another's life
The fetus is alive not yet a life with rights of its own. The fetus is a part of the mothers body and not independent of it. If a mother has decided that she does not choose to carry and care for this child then it is in her right to stop the continuing process.
Again I ask all of you pro-lifers, how does it affect you personally what a woman chooses to do with her body/her fetus? What does it take from you personally if a woman chooses to abort her own fetus? Why is it so important for you to intefere with a decision that does not affect you? I can understand it is against your own morality, I can understand if you find the decision repulsive, you are free to not have an abortion or suggest to your pregnant girlfriend or wife to not have an abortion, but why are you interested in forcing your beliefs on women whom you know not, care nothing about and where you do not have to live with the consequences?
Last edited:
You've got the whole thing nailed, Okinrus. Lucysnow is trapped between her statement that a fetus IS a human being and her statement that it is her property. If it is a human being, it is murder to kill it. Murder is defined as the taking of another humans life outside of the clause of self defense. It doesn't matter how you justify it, because to set the precidence that killing other humans outside of self defense is a dangerous precidence to set.
You seem highly ignorant on the issue of Roe vs. Wade and the entire circumstances surrounding it. At the time McCorvey was carrying her child abortion was not legal yet. Her lawyers told McCorvey that if she helped make abortion legal, they would be sure she got one. In the end, Norma McCorvey did not get one. She believes that her lawyers needed her to be pregnant in order to help persue the case. Norma McCorvey as I said, never wrote her affidavid. The legal statement she signed was not based on her situation either, it was entirely fabricated. Norma McCorvey never testified in court either. Thus, the entire legal issue of Roe vs. Wade is based on a testamony of a woman who never existed. Jane Roe was a fabrication of the feminist movement in order to create the lawsuit. You might say that donesn't matter, but it speaks volumes about the integrity of the abortion rights advocates. Ironically, it was this very treatment by the Abortionists, combined with lots of emotional support and even friends she made in the pro-life movement which caused her to join Operation Rescue, and be baptized in the Catholic Church. It says a lot when Abortion's poster child turns Christian, doesn't it?
Norma McCorvey (AKA Jane Roe) wrote a book about her experiences first as Jane Roe and later she worked in Abortion Clinics. She has a lot of insights into the practices, procedures, and dealings that go on in them. Her book is entitled "Won By Love" and is available at most book stores.
Is the womb HER womb, or does it belong to the fetus inside it? You can't answer that one without any kind of subjective argument. It is my argument that the fetus has the RIGHT to be there, because by engaging in concensual sex, a woman has accepted the risks involved. Oh, but you have contraceptives right? Planned Parenthood lied to you on the idea that it will minimze chances. In fact, their own statistics indicate that over 60% of all abortions come after safe sex was practiced and the contraceptives failed. That includes incidents involving the use of condoms, pills, IUD's, ect. Therefore, since the risk of pregnancy has not been eliminated by any means (save a woman being sterilized) there is still a natural consequences. But anyhow, you are assuming that I think that taking the woman's "choice" away is making it society property. No, I consider it the childs property, by virtue of the female initiating in the activity which caused the child to be concived.
Since you have admitted that this argument is subjective while my arguments in Biology are NOT, then how can you say she doesn't have to justify it? Do you know what the root word of "Justify" is and what it means?
It is because your arguments are purely subjective while Biology is not. There is no justification other than "Because I said so" to any of the Pro-Choice arguments you have presented. Mine by contrast, are entirely repeatable and the facts in evidence I have brought are for the most part based in physical reality, not wishful thinking. Indeed, your arguments are far less rational than the supposed Pro-Life irrationality.
You seem highly ignorant on the issue of Roe vs. Wade and the entire circumstances surrounding it. At the time McCorvey was carrying her child abortion was not legal yet. Her lawyers told McCorvey that if she helped make abortion legal, they would be sure she got one. In the end, Norma McCorvey did not get one. She believes that her lawyers needed her to be pregnant in order to help persue the case. Norma McCorvey as I said, never wrote her affidavid. The legal statement she signed was not based on her situation either, it was entirely fabricated. Norma McCorvey never testified in court either. Thus, the entire legal issue of Roe vs. Wade is based on a testamony of a woman who never existed. Jane Roe was a fabrication of the feminist movement in order to create the lawsuit. You might say that donesn't matter, but it speaks volumes about the integrity of the abortion rights advocates. Ironically, it was this very treatment by the Abortionists, combined with lots of emotional support and even friends she made in the pro-life movement which caused her to join Operation Rescue, and be baptized in the Catholic Church. It says a lot when Abortion's poster child turns Christian, doesn't it?
Norma McCorvey (AKA Jane Roe) wrote a book about her experiences first as Jane Roe and later she worked in Abortion Clinics. She has a lot of insights into the practices, procedures, and dealings that go on in them. Her book is entitled "Won By Love" and is available at most book stores.
Is the womb HER womb, or does it belong to the fetus inside it? You can't answer that one without any kind of subjective argument. It is my argument that the fetus has the RIGHT to be there, because by engaging in concensual sex, a woman has accepted the risks involved. Oh, but you have contraceptives right? Planned Parenthood lied to you on the idea that it will minimze chances. In fact, their own statistics indicate that over 60% of all abortions come after safe sex was practiced and the contraceptives failed. That includes incidents involving the use of condoms, pills, IUD's, ect. Therefore, since the risk of pregnancy has not been eliminated by any means (save a woman being sterilized) there is still a natural consequences. But anyhow, you are assuming that I think that taking the woman's "choice" away is making it society property. No, I consider it the childs property, by virtue of the female initiating in the activity which caused the child to be concived.
Since you have admitted that this argument is subjective while my arguments in Biology are NOT, then how can you say she doesn't have to justify it? Do you know what the root word of "Justify" is and what it means?
It is because your arguments are purely subjective while Biology is not. There is no justification other than "Because I said so" to any of the Pro-Choice arguments you have presented. Mine by contrast, are entirely repeatable and the facts in evidence I have brought are for the most part based in physical reality, not wishful thinking. Indeed, your arguments are far less rational than the supposed Pro-Life irrationality.