If abortion isn't murder...

[Paradoxum]

about my love? Dead serious. Back in the 90's I had a 40K US bounty on my head. Adjust your currency how you may, getting it lifted this past summer doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy there aren't still shooters looking to collect.

That's quite an amazing thing (but not good) if your not joking.

Thank you, I need grace because I am a rotten sinner.

Bad, bad, bad.

Please know I would pleasure you in ways . . .. but really I am committed to the one love of my life & I do view you as a sister deeply loved, but not in a wrong kinda way.

Oh my... almost a bit too explicit for a public forum.

Yes you are. You should be spanked for that, but tenderly.

A very brotherly thing to do.

 

[Glas Ridire]

That's quite an amazing thing (but not good) if your not joking.

Not joking on any count.

 

[jminnesota]

yes its murder. an unborn baby is its own person. so yes abortion is murder. i here people say the woman should do what she wants with her body well what about the unborn body what about his or hers. did you know that your body produces a chemical to keep the unborn baby inside of you otherwise it would be seen as a invader and the body would try and get ride of the egg once it was planted.

there are many people who would love kids if you dont want the child the give it up once it is born

 

[Paradoxum]

yes its murder. an unborn baby is its own person. so yes abortion is murder.

What characteristic of the fetus makes you think it is a person? Be as specific as you feel you can.

there are many people who would love kids if you dont want the child the give it up once it is born

I'm not a baby making machine, thank you very much.

 

[HughGinn]

I ran across this statement and blog entry on this topic today and I have been pondering this all day"

"A Jesuit mentor of mine once told me that 'morality, in the end, must be based on reality.' In other words, you can create great philosophical or theological argument, but if it runs counter to the reality of life on the ground, it will never take."

The blogger then hits pretty hard with the some "realities" around conception and birth that I had not considered to this point, and the realities that religious obstetric nurses have to deal with every day that, frankly, aren't very pretty. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but he does have me thinking.

Theology, Reality and Conception | Beagle Notes

Peace
Hugh

 

[Gracchus]

Murder is whatever the law defines it to be. If the law does not classify abortion as murder, then it isn't. If a man kills an unborn, then the law must deal with that as the law determines.

If some deity wants to punish someone that the law has neglected to punish, then the deity is free to do so. If we allowed lynch-mobs, the self-righteous would rule the world.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not a baby making machine, thank you very much.

You might want to re-word that.

You make it sound as if abortion is a glorious expression of women's rights while putting a baby up for adoption is degrading.

 

[Paradoxum]

You might want to re-word that.

I think it's fine.

You make it sound as if abortion is a glorious expression of women's rights while putting a baby up for adoption is degrading.

Being forced to have a baby to put it up for adoption is. If someone wants to do that then that's their choice. But it isn't a good justification for banning abortion.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think it's fine.

Being forced to have a baby to put it up for adoption is. If someone wants to do that then that's their choice. But it isn't a good justification for banning abortion.

If someone his having repeat unplanned pregnancies, what they decide to do with it doesn't make them any more or less of a "baby machine"

 

[morningstar2651]

If someone his having repeat unplanned pregnancies, what they decide to do with it doesn't make them any more or less of a "baby machine"

That's...not a very tactful statement.

If someone is having repeat unplanned pregnancies, then they suck at planning. Perhaps they haven't had a proper sex education and/or don't know how to use contraceptives. The problem isn't that they keep having abortions - the problem is that they keep getting pregnant.

Banning abortion doesn't fix their lack of a proper sex education, which is probably the real problem in this situation.

There is something that we can all agree on whether we're pro-choice or pro-life: We'd all prefer that children are wanted by their parents, and no child should be an accident.

I'd prefer that parents choose to carry their pregnancies to term and I'd prefer that abortions were less common... but the right to make that choice is important to me.

 

[medieval_lady83]

I believe that all human beings have a right to exist, regardless of what stage of development they are in (adult, child, toddler, infant, fetus, etc), the number of cells they are made up of, regardless of whether they are in or out of the womb, or how they got there. A separate human life has an innate right to live. The exception would be if they are guilty of committing a crime (ie murder). Then they may have to forfeit their life. But I don't believe a woman should have any right to end a life that's not her own. I believe that goes for children living in and out of her womb. I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not she conceives a child. But once a new life comes into existence, a woman's rights should take a back seat to the needs of that new life. If a woman wants a baby, that is the attitude she takes. She puts her needs on the back burner to give the child what it needs. So again, this is about a woman's so called right to change definitions solely based on her feelings at the time. (I want the baby, so it's a baby. I don't want the baby, so it's a blob of cells. Or even worse: I know it's a baby, but I don't want it, so I'm going to end it's life. ) It's about a woman's right to be fickle or to commit flat out murder or accessory to murder. And it's an embarrassment to womankind.

 

[Gadarene]

I believe that all human beings have a right to exist, regardless of what stage of development they are in (adult, child, toddler, infant, fetus,

,spermatozoon, ovum, glint in the eye, etc

 

[medieval_lady83]

,spermatozoon, ovum, glint in the eye, etc

Those are not separate human beings. We're talking post conception. I'm sure you knew that, but were just trying to be funny...

 

[Gadarene]

Those are not separate human beings. We're talking post conception. I'm sure you knew that, but were just trying to be funny...

A zygote isn't a human being either.

 

[Rubiks]

noneffective contraception and having to an unwanted child for 18 years doesn't justify a murder.

 

[morningstar2651]

noneffective contraception and having to an unwanted child for 18 years doesn't justify a murder.

I don't condone murder.

 

[medieval_lady83]

A zygote isn't a human being either.

If you were trying for a baby with your wife, and a zygote was produced, my guess is you'd feel differently.

 

[Gadarene]

If you were trying for a baby with your wife, and a zygote was produced, my guess is you'd feel differently.

No, I wouldn't. A correct conclusion is correct independent of hormones.

 

[Jade Margery]

I believe that all human beings have a right to exist, regardless of what stage of development they are in (adult, child, toddler, infant, fetus, etc), the number of cells they are made up of, regardless of whether they are in or out of the womb, or how they got there. A separate human life has an innate right to live. The exception would be if they are guilty of committing a crime (ie murder). Then they may have to forfeit their life. But I don't believe a woman should have any right to end a life that's not her own. I believe that goes for children living in and out of her womb. I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not she conceives a child. But once a new life comes into existence, a woman's rights should take a back seat to the needs of that new life. If a woman wants a baby, that is the attitude she takes. She puts her needs on the back burner to give the child what it needs. So again, this is about a woman's so called right to change definitions solely based on her feelings at the time. (I want the baby, so it's a baby. I don't want the baby, so it's a blob of cells. Or even worse: I know it's a baby, but I don't want it, so I'm going to end it's life. ) It's about a woman's right to be fickle or to commit flat out murder or accessory to murder. And it's an embarrassment to womankind.

Please use spaces to avoid Wall-o-Text Syndrome.

To your comment: So what if a woman gets pregnant but she really, really doesn't want to be pregnant? You say her needs go on a back burner for the child's needs, but how much? Suppose she decides to smoke, drink, do drugs, avoid pre-natal care, eat unhealthy food, and or take part in dangerous physical activities while pregnant. These things could harm or kill the baby. So should we regulate what women are and are not allowed to do while pregnant?

I guess so, since you're already advocating taking control of the woman's body away from her. So let's say we outlaw the obvious dangers. What about the less obvious dangers?

I say they shouldn't be allowed to ride in cars. After all, car accidents happen, and why should the fetus have to pay for its mother's decision to ride in a potentially dangerous vehicle? Also, pregnant women's diets need to be strictly controlled for maximum nutrition. How can we in good conscience allow pregnant women to drink soda or eat fast food when their dietary decisions could affect their child's health as well? Mom's need to take a snack break should come secondary to the kid's need for healthy nutrients, right?

Well, since we're going to be treating women like walking wombs machines without bodily autonomy anyway, let's just ship them off to a special camp as soon as they get pregnant. There they will experience the optimum amount of physical activity, eat perfectly nutritious foods, be perfectly safe all the time, and have no freedom whatsoever. Therefore all babies born will be guaranteed to have all of their needs met. Why should the mother have any choice at all when there's a precious, precious baby inside of her?


Or maybe you shouldn't be telling other human beings what to do with their own bodies.

 

[medieval_lady83]

Wow. It really boggles the mind that womankind needs to be taught elementary things about what it means to be a woman. That the purpose of a womb is to protect and nurture the life that's there. That just because it's your womb doesn't mean you should use that as a license to destroy what's growing inside. To have to explain to women that it is a good thing to sacrifice for their growing child, the way mothers have done for human history. To have to explain to a woman that they shouldn't intentionally harm their child. To read people mocking the thought of doing what's right for a child....There is something seriously wrong with that. What a scary generation we live in.