Abortion= WRONG

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by cma, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Please demonstrate the flaw in my thinking. I have been kind enough to do the same for you.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arditezza Banned Banned

    No offense P.M. but do you have anything to add to the debate other than just tossing insults around? Seems kinda useless. No one here needs a cheerleader or heckler. If you have something to argue, please put it on the table by all means.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. What species does the fertilized egg belong to? It has all the necessary genes to be considered human by biological classification. By what science are you assigning it a different classification?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    So does your apendix.... yet removing that isn't murder either.
  8. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    No, I don't believe genes make a person. What I believe is that an entity capable of growing into a fullfledge human being is a human being. This necessarily means that what we call a human being is not given a precise definition. Probably the best definition would be anyone who is the offspring of two human beings is a human being. Cloning, if it occurs, would have to an exception to this rule much like Eve.

    This is kind of purposely phrased to make abortion legal. Why does the biological parent matter? Can we reduce this to "Cells from a human being which are capable of living for an extended period of time without another human being?" Yet this definition would mean that those who life depend on another human being and only that human being could be killed at will.

    Second, since a C-section can performed quite some time before a women gives birth, it's the women or doctor's choice not to peform one, and so it's the women's choice that the fetus not receive the help of other human beings. This like me forcing a doctor not to perform a life saving operation on a patient. I would still be committing murder here.

    This might be correct, given your definition is wrong, but unless if you can say "all", the element of doubt requires a full ban.
  9. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Im sure he'd refuse to pay if he wanted a child, i know i would, and also if she told him she was on the pill he might not pay, it depends if he wants the kid or not, though it still is rather expensive considering other methods.
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Soo... basically you say that you don't know... yet want to stop people from choosing themselves. Do you see a problem there?
    Becuase that is the person who is having to suffer.
    Quite obviously, no. The vast majoority of us still need other human beings.
    Likewise it is the woman who will have to bear the scar for the rest of her life. Regardless, the majority of fetuses do not fall into this category.
    Um... no. It requires a ban on late-term abortions. If you disagree explain why.

    Until you decide why you think they are human and deserve life more than sperm, you don't have much to argue.
  11. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    For Parsol, and any others who might be interested in my words.

    Opinions fly about indiscriminately, colorfully elaborated to suit the mood of the sender. I can tell you this: That was not a mood, but was about the disregard toward fighting nature, and then rationalizing despicable deeds. What I wrote is what I was feeling, and do feel. You disagree obviously, and I understand this, but I have no stomach for it. It honestly makes me sick. You can, of course, say this simply reflects who I am. You damn betcha’!

    Believe this or not! Those dying babies, -as you might think, are not my only concern. Death comes by many avenues, and death is evitable. Further, many things can befall us in this life far worse than death. Therefore, it is not just for the lives being carelessly conceived and then destroyed. Further, it is certainly not for the emergencies and so forth that brings about such a sad choice for many. Nay, dear friend, who are so concerned about your bodies and your rights. It is for you that tears burn my eyes.

    Much of my life’s work has been with youngsters, and God knows I love them, regardless of their choices. I realize too that they grow up, and some of them post on forums, just like you. Some have abortions, and others simply help bring them about, not intentionally, of course, and some manage to avoid such an event. All this is reality, and I can deal with troubling choices. What grieves me, is the extent to which those who become increasingly fervent in propagating abortion, go to justify even the dastardliest deeds. Not all of those lives are ended because of some extreme necessity; notwithstanding, you hear little about this, except from the—mostly annoying—extreme right wing.

    We all, in the course of a lifetime—if we live long enough—do things that are not right. Sometimes, we talk ourselves into believing at least at the time that it is okay. Later, we may regret our choice, but have to give ourselves some room for growing up, for learning, and for error. This is life. Things happen, but my God in heaven, when you call on science to give yourself some mechanical theory for killing, then what on earth are you doing to yourselves? What is happening to you? What are you doing to yourselves? This is my concern! Again, I say, it is not so much the destruction of life that had no choice, but the corruption of the reasoning that attempts to justify it.

    We could stop all this disagreement about such things—maybe—if we could just get rid of the concept of God. Then we would have no need to be accountable for much of what we do that creates so much emotion and controversy. Without a concept of God, nature and us, being a unit, we would have no concerns about nature, about God, and certainly not about you and me being sister in any broad sense. We could find cause to destroy all those misfortunate children born with afflictions! After all, it is obvious that they will have a miserable life, (even more obvious than with those half born). We could push the wheelchairs over the clefts, and drive the older folks right off the roads. After all, some of those seniors cause many of the accidents, -not be as many as the young cause, of course, but the young have to have time to learn, (unless they kill themselves first). We could also do away with nursing homes, the inhabitants of which—for sure—are miserable, -more miserable than most of us can even imagine, and partly because those, expected to have some time for them, are perhaps too busy trying to make some sense of their own lives. Am I on the right track here?

    The biggest problem is that we have it all backwards. There is nothing more healing than going outside ourselves. There is nothing more noble than caring for this world that we have. This entire BS about “I deserve it,” and “It is my body,” is just that. We deserve nothing! This world was here before us, and will be here after we are gone. Every good thing that comes into our lives should be perceived as a blessing, because, feeling blessed is far, far better than being absorbed with what should be, -because “I deserve it.” We also need to take responsibility for our actions.

    I think that most of us want to make some sense of our lives. The things that happen, which seem to threat our happiness, is often not as bad as it may seem, if we face our situation with courage and determination. In fact, it is futile to pursue happiness.. Once we find out how to deal with ourselves, happiness ensues. Tuning things out, or turning up the volume on what we think we must have, does not do much for those times when we are alone and wonder why the face in mirror does not please us. Not allowing ourselves time to think only stunts our growth and makes us do stupid things. It is hard to reevaluate in the midst of busy pictures and endless activity. Without moderation, we can lose track of who we are and what we stand for. When we lend ourselves to stretching our field of what is okay, or to that which requires almost no thinking, we can become nothing more than a happy little moron. Open-mindedness, on the other hand, gives us opportunity to be knowing, and with discernment in place, we treasure only the things that serve us well.

    I have given you my words. Use your own terms and your own analogies, but use something, for God’s sake! All that we have that is truly ours are our principles and our beliefs; let us handle them with care. In this world, we have no power upon which we can depend. Without power, our “rights” fall limp by the wayside as we sadly tread along, bitter, and feeling invalidated. You are, therefore, correct when you say that these lives destroyed (by abortion) have no rights, and this fact will remain for as long as there is no power to preserve these in a physical sense.

    You may not accept that we have a soul, as so many great teachers have taught. If so, then perhaps you accept that we have a mind, apart from the brain? How about intuition? In any event, science cannot fully explain these things. Fully, I say! Why, they have hardly touched the surface. Therefore, what causes one to cling to whatever they may drag from science to dispute any and all things to do with, what some call, the essence of nature, of humanity, of the universe.

    As I close these thoughts, I offer one more consideration. You might think about this, some time when making your judgments, (or not). I am fascinated with science and have great respect for all its devotees; but, in spite of all that science has accomplished, and! In spite of all it can tell us, we still wrestle with many aspects of sociology, psychology, heredity, and a host of mental disorders and diseases. Medical challenges are still plagued with guesswork, ~ and you know these things. In other words, there are still many questions on tangibles, but even more questions about things having to do with our emotions, imaginations and dreams. We cannot disengage these intangibles. Without emotions, we could not appreciate except possibly in some mechanical way. Without imagination, we could not learn. Without dreams … well what would we do without dreams? Who knows for sure?

    I thought the best thing I could do would be to talk to you as I would to anyone I care about. Yes, you break my heart. I hurt for you. Do not be deceived. Whether we believe in God or not, whatever we sow, we reap.

    There is so much on this forum, wishing that religious people would rethink all they have been taught. Well, some of us have. Now I challenge you:

    Dare to rethink what you have been told, please.
  12. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Excuse me Persol, I misspelled your title name. I added that in haste, and I should not hurry so, sorry. pmt
  13. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    No problem.

    You put a young fetus in the same category as a human.
    I put a young fetus in the same category as a sperm/fish/whatever.

    The later makes more sense to me, as we can think of reasons it is in that category (without including things obviously non-human). Nobody has shown a way to categorize it into the first without including things decidedly non-human.
    I have... hence the reason I'm pro-choice.
  14. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    That is self-deception. You are pro-abortion. If you were truly pro-choice then you would be upholding all the choices we have that make abortion unnecessary. Also, you would be concerned about the number abortion being performed, and feel ashamed for our nation. I do not condemn anyone for getting an abortion; in fact, I do not condemn anyone, nor am I condemning you, I am simply trying to get you to face facts. You have been led down the path of lest resistance, and that is all too sad.

    Thank you for responding, and I do not doubt your sincerity, only your reasoning.

  15. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    No, I do know. A human being is any entity with a human soul, and the offspring of any two human beings is a human being. Of course, since the human soul cannot be externally observed, defining a human being as the offspring of two other human beings is suitable.

    Some amount of uncertainty is not a problem. While it's true by faith I know the fetus is a human being, I don't assume that another person will have this same faith. I do, however, believe there's always uncertainty without faith, and I believe by showing enough doubt, enough contradictions in any other definition, I can prove that abortionists are not sure that the fetus is not a human being.

    So you condone infanticide in those rare times when a women gives birth to child on her own, and is away from anyone else who could care?

    Ok, but why is it necessary for the biological mother? What about those surrogate mothers?

    If your definition cannot be applied to all cases it is either false or needs serious revision.
  16. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member


    I do not mean this in a hateful way, but I have given these matters much thought over my seventy years on this earth, and I am considered reasonable by most who know me. Thought I should preface this, because I am making a judgment opinion, but it surely seems to me that perhaps the reason some folks do not wish to believe in an almighty God, is because they want to be God. They want to decide what is okay, and what is not. They not only do not want any spiritual applications, but they also want to override nature, whip it into control, and preserve the all-knowing, all-might self, which is indeed neither, but just a flawed human being with a big ego.

    I have appreciated your posts. Spinoza said that passion, while a great motivator does not make a good guide. Wisdom should always be our guide. I trust that my passion for justice had not weakened my wisdom in this matter. I have for years, more or less, kept my opinions on this matter to myself, but it is getting so ridiculous and so out of hand that I could scarcely believe what I was reading.

    Anyway, I think I have said enough. Your argument is better than mine anyway.
  17. Nivao Ghost of Mirkwood Registered Senior Member

    don't you need a functioning brain to have a soul?
    i don't think that a zygote has a functioning brain. yes, it is technically human life- but so is my hair -a collection of cells with human DNA. yet, i'm still having my hair CUT and highlighted tomorrow... sniffle...

    we cannot argue over when the fetus is actually a human. it occurs when the fetus begins to become more like a human. like, in the second and third trimester (i think) the baby begins to move and kick. this shows a brain and nervous system functioning.

    you can't draw the line over when an abortion should take place, but the earlier the better. i don't believe in killing human life out of convienence. but, for medical reasons we still need it to be legal. that's why i am pro-CHOICE.


    a woman should still have the CHOICE over the extreme life-changer that is having a baby. no man should be making the decision for her. and there is no argument that will make me think otherwise.
  18. Enigma'07 Who turned out the lights?!?! Registered Senior Member

    you guys are taking the whole thing out of context. Onan was punished because he refused to obay God and share his inherritance with their potental offspring. God never forbade christians from eating pork. In the old testament the Jews were told not to eat pork becaues it was unclean, and would be considered a sin if they did so.
  19. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    No. It isn't. That's just the point. They are 'choices'. The popularity of the choices has no bearing on them being choices. Whether I would make that choice has no bearing at all on whether other people should be allowed to.

    And no, I'm not pro-abortion. If I had my way everyone who didn't want a kid would use birth control. It's cheaper, safer, and people don't complain nearly as much. That's not going to happen though.
    It shows that we don't do a good enough job teaching our kids about sex and how to prevent pregnancies. Other than that, no... I don't feel any more ashamed than if everyone used a condom.
    Please point out why.
  20. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    FYI: If I am not mistaken, your hair is not living tissue.
  21. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    No, but your teeth are... he just picked a bad example.
  22. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Persol; I think I did. This is not accomplishing anything. I am stunned by such a cavalier attitude about a human being cut off intentionally before it has a chance to live, that is all. Usually, I keep my mouth shut. You probably wish I had this time. No hard feelings. We find what we seek, and I have good feelings about you, in spite of our passionate (for me) disagreement.
  23. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    But that's the point. It isn't alive. As you say it is 'before it has a chance to live'. I can say this for every sperm that dies because I'm not having sex daily.

    As you specifically said, it isn't yet alive. So yes, I am cavalier about it... just as cavalier about taking a dog to the vet to get fixed. Once again, 'cut off intentionally before it (the offspring) has a chance to live'.

    The problem is that most pro-lifers will evenetually break down and say 'no, a fetus is not technically human'... but then fail to see that they don't actually have any logical reason to stop somebody ELSE from doing it.

    I'm amazed that you went from analogies of murder to 'not yet alive' so quickly.

Share This Page