Why are there religious people?

[TillICollapse]

Sorry...I guess it was the girly name that threw me.

Read his entire username slowly, and you'll see it's not all that "girly".

 

[TheBarrd]

Probably a version of this little girl ...

Don't laugh...when I first saw your name I took it as a variation of "Tillie"...but that was before the move, and you still had your "male" icon under you name.
I still see most of you as being...how does the phrase go?...young, dumb, and full of....uh....fun.
I do like the picture of the little girl....
She could be my grand daughter....

 

[TillICollapse]

Don't laugh...when I first saw your name I took it as a variation of "Tillie"...but that was before the move, and you still had your "male" icon under you name.

I wouldn't laugh at that, at least not in a way that I would be viewing you as unintelligent or some such. I've known too many people with dyslexia so I understand how some of the usernames might throw a person for a loop. To be clear, I wasn't saying to read my own username slowly however, I was saying to read Ana's username slowly.

I still see most of you as being...how does the phrase go?...young, dumb, and full of....uh....fun.

Come now.

(See what I did there ?)

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm interested in your view on the solution to the problem. Lets say girl x (you can insert your bolded words if you like) gets pregnant even though she is on the pill, because lets say she had something that impacted the effectiveness of the pill, which we know happens. Yes I know you can say she should be with a partner that will support her if she does get pregnant etc (a desirable situation) but lets just shove that to the side for now. How would you legislate against her having an abortion if she doesn't want the child and her partner doesn't either, and that's why they were using contraception. You either support her choice to abort it, meaning that abortion and her choice to do so is the only solution to that problem for her and her partner not wanting the baby (not that you support the abortion) and thus you support that choice as the only viable solution to the problem, or you have a solution in mind so that the baby is not aborted. Is she to be forced to go to term and have a caesarean or actual birth and then adopt? I know that may be your desire, but would it be your wish for governing bodies to enforce that?

Did I answer this already?
Yes, I think that the child this girl is carrying is a person, and deserves the same protection under the law as any other person.
Abortion is not her "only choice". She can choose to give birth and give her baby up for adoption, or she can choose to keep her baby. There are schools that actually have day care centers so that girls like this can have a safe place for baby close by while she attends classes...or, she could continue her education online, as I've seen a couple of girls do.
There are government agencies that will help her.
And there are centers like the one I volunteer at in just about every major city and loads of smaller towns, all over the United States. I have personally taken such girls into my home and taken care of them, and so have many many other volunteers.

Meantime, maybe it might be a good idea to stop glorifying sex. It really isn't the end all and be all of human experience...and sex without love is depressingly empty. I would further wish for our governing bodies to exercise some control over "sex education classes." See to it that they are taught as if the teacher were the actual parent, with a vested interest other than a paycheck...just as if these are his/her own daughters risking pregnancy and his own sons looking at the business end of a paternity suit...or his/her own precious kids at risk for STDs...
Either that, or give the job back to the people who do have such an interest...and who were handling it without government interference for a loooooooong time...

 

[TheBarrd]

I wouldn't laugh at that, at least not in a way that I would be viewing you as unintelligent or some such. I've known too many people with dyslexia so I understand how some of the usernames might throw a person for a loop. To be clear, I wasn't saying to read my own username slowly however, I was saying to read Ana's username slowly.
Come now.

(See what I did there ?)

cute...

Ana still sounds feminine to me...sorry...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry...I guess it was the girly name that threw me.
And your questions did seem sort of...well, silly.
Seriously...a woman doing jumping jacks? I was supposed to take that seriously?
So, I apologize for thinking you were a little girl.
I suppose if you're a guy you wouldn't know a whole lot about being pregnant...about feeling that new life inside of you...about the mysterious bond between you and the little invader...you couldn't know the terror of feeling the abortion is the only alternative...the fear, and yes...the guilt.
Momma nature can be cruel...but that old commercial had it right.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature...

In any case, I most humbly apologize for misreading you...

No need for apologies...really. You're not the first and won't be the last. The name is purposely misleading... you have to get rid of the caps and spaces before you realize you're just talking to an atheist.

Sure, I won't be feeling any lives growing inside me (hopefully). I do however, understand the guilt that some women feel at the notion of having an abortion...and I too have helped a couple through it.

It was a process of helping them figure out the source of that guilt then eliminating it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"We" would be volunteers who give their time to abortion alternative centers. If you had been paying attention, you would have heard me saying that I have been such a volunteer for over 30 years. I'm getting old now, and there are health problems that kind of limit how much I can do any more...but I do still try to put in a few hours two or three days a week..

You claimed to have received training for this role. Still waiting for you to elucidate what this training involved.

 

[TheBarrd]

No need for apologies...really. You're not the first and won't be the last. The name is purposely misleading... you have to get rid of the caps and spaces before you realize you're just talking to an atheist.

Sure, I won't be feeling any lives growing inside me (hopefully). I do however, understand the guilt that some women feel at the notion of having an abortion...and I too have helped a couple through it.

It was a process of helping them figure out the source of that guilt then eliminating it.

There never was any doubt that you are an atheist. After all, it's the "in" thing, these days, isn't it?
What do you think is the "source of guilt" when a young woman contemplates abortion? Do you think it is religious folks like me?
Or could it be something even deeper?

I'm sure you know that, among the animal kingdom, the instinct of the mother to protect her young is pretty much universal, especially among mammals? Get in between a Momma bear and her cubs, or mess with a newborn gorilla, just for the heck of it, and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about. And those gals don't need someone like me to "put my theology on their biology"...they do what they do because it is their nature to do it.

Had it ever occurred to you that the same instinct beats within the heart of the human mother as well?
Perhaps she feels that overwhelming guilt and shame because she is violating her own nature...

I have learned a lot from people who don't think the way that I do over the years. My atheist friends have taught me quite a bit, in fact.
I suggest, my friend, that you stop looking at this guilt that women feel as something imposed on them by religion, and consider the possibility that it just might be our good friend, Mother Nature, seeing to it that the species survives....

 

[TheBarrd]

None taken...you really need to respect someone before their opinions about you begin to matter. Judging from what you've written here, you didn't exactly read it correctly anyway.

So basically, you aren't answering?

Wait a minute. You honestly expect me to tell you whether, in my opinion, a woman doing strenuous exercise that dislodges a newly implanted embryo that she was not aware of is a murderer, right?
First of all, once the little guy has burrowed his way into the lining of the uterus that was ready for him, the chances of dislodging him with jumping jacks, or jogging, or swimming, or any other such activity are pretty slim. In fact, if he could be dislodged so easily, he probably wouldn't have carried to term, anyhow.
However, should such a thing happen, the mother would be completely unaware of it. At the very worst, she might think her period was heavier than normal, but she probably wouldn't worry about it too much.
Is she a murderer? Of course not! Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. The question is ridiculous, and it is one of the reasons I kinda saw you as a smart aleck kid who thought a bit too highly of herself...

So, it turns out that you are a thirty-something man...I stand corrected.
I suppose I should have realized that it had to be a man who came up with that question...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wait a minute. You honestly expect me to tell you whether, in my opinion, a woman doing strenuous exercise that dislodges a newly implanted embryo that she was not aware of is a murderer, right?
First of all, once the little guy has burrowed his way into the lining of the uterus that was ready for him, the chances of dislodging him with jumping jacks, or jogging, or swimming, or any other such activity are pretty slim. In fact, if he could be dislodged so easily, he probably wouldn't have carried to term, anyhow.
However, should such a thing happen, the mother would be completely unaware of it. At the very worst, she might think her period was heavier than normal, but she probably wouldn't worry about it too much.
Is she a murderer? Of course not! The question is ridiculous, and it is one of the reasons I kinda saw you as a smart aleck kid who thought a bit too highly of herself...

So why does it become "murder" when that same zygote or embryo is removed deliberately? You don't seem to think the mother should mourn its loss when it happens naturally; in fact, you say "she probably wouldn't worry about it too much."

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Did I answer this already?
Yes, I think that the child this girl is carrying is a person, and deserves the same protection under the law as any other person.
Abortion is not her "only choice". She can choose to give birth and give her baby up for adoption, or she can choose to keep her baby. There are schools that actually have day care centers so that girls like this can have a safe place for baby close by while she attends classes...or, she could continue her education online, as I've seen a couple of girls do.
There are government agencies that will help her.
And there are centers like the one I volunteer at in just about every major city and loads of smaller towns, all over the United States. I have personally taken such girls into my home and taken care of them, and so have many many other volunteers.

Yes maybe you did answer that already. There are a couple of concerns I have about giving equal rights to a baby in the womb to that of the mother. I’m not sure we deserve any special considerations as humans over any other life but they exist nonetheless. I see personhood as a term to describe a literal thing. The thing we are describing is a baby, even if it’s a cluster of cells at a stage of forming into a baby. It is a literal thing, but that thing is not a person, and for that reason it can’t be called murder. Personhood is an odd thing in a way. A cow cannot have personhood because it’s a cow, it doesn’t have the form nor mental or physical ability of a person, thus its rights in comparison to a human are limited, even though it lives a sensory existence with a brain and central nervous system, just like us. I think a baby is a baby from conception, a potential to be one, but it doesn’t have personhood, it can’t because it doesn’t have the literal form, any more than a cow can have personhood which at the zygote stage of development a cow has greater sensory experience of life than the baby. So I don’t feel the rights of the baby should be that of the rights of a literal person (the mother) in the same way a cow (another sentient life form) doesn’t have them either. Obviously that personhood status is developmental all the way up until it is born. We wouldn’t call a child an adult for the same reason, its because they are a child, and that child doesn’t have the same rights as an adult for obvious reasons, yes they can be murdered because they have personhood.

All life has value and we implement rights to that valuable component, which is usually gauged depending on the stage and experiences of the life form as we know it. A baby at the stage of Zygote does not have an experience nor personhood. It would be wrong to judge that life of no value because of the lack of any experience but if the mother (who does have personhood and rights as a result) decides she doesn’t want the baby at this early stage then her rights override the babies, in the same way her rights would override that of a cow. Now obviously we can observe frivolous and selfish behaviour of the said person who has the rights to abort, and in this light it seems unfair etc, but that doesn’t make the overall observation wrong, only the behaviour of the selfish or frivolous person and if that is a concern on mass then parents, teachers and society at large etc need to work harder at eradicating that type of behaviour. Obviously a women who is pressurized into an abortion by a partner or parents or is in a limited financial situation is not making a real free choice as that choice is impacted, but again the right to choose is the standard, based on her having greater rights than the child she carries.


Mother nature informs a mother of her pregnancy in two ways. One is no menstrual cycle, the other is morning sickness at around four to six weeks. My ideal would be for a women to terminate within this period of time prior to say four weeks to limit the physical change that starts occurring in a women’s body which is essentially the morning sickness. From that point on a women will feel she is pregnant, both mentally and physically and potentially problems can arise from that, the more so as time moves forward and also the babies experience of life starts to form and so as the time moves on I’m less supportive of women’s right to choose. Also we need to protect a woman’s mental state with the wording we use and to call it murder is a very poor usage of wording, in the same way killing a cow is not murder. We can call it an unneeded death, an immoral killing, a waste of a life etc (as we can with animals) but its not murder. It you cared about the mental well being of mothers who have aborted you wouldn’t come to a public forum and call it murder. I’m assuming you wouldn’t say that to a grieving women who was looking for your support, so why say it now when there are potentially women who need your support from the 11,000 views on this thread.

Meantime, maybe it might be a good idea to stop glorifying sex. It really isn't the end all and be all of human experience...and sex without love is depressingly empty. I would further wish for our governing bodies to exercise some control over "sex education classes." See to it that they are taught as if the teacher were the actual parent, with a vested interest other than a paycheck...just as if these are his/her own daughters risking pregnancy and his own sons looking at the business end of a paternity suit...or his/her own precious kids at risk for STDs...
Either that, or give the job back to the people who do have such an interest...and who were handling it without government interference for a loooooooong time..

Sex is instinctual and happens to be enjoyable. Some experience those elements more than others, some not at all. Yes I think sex education is massively important to the issue. Length of time does not dictate interest in all the concerns at hand, nor does it relay effectiveness of any handling. Personally any going back (whatever than may entail) is not a good idea.

 

[TheBarrd]

Yes maybe you did answer that already. There are a couple of concerns I have about giving equal rights to a baby in the womb to that of the mother. I’m not sure we deserve any special considerations as humans over any other life but they exist nonetheless. I see personhood as a term to describe a literal thing. The thing we are describing is a baby, even if it’s a cluster of cells at a stage of forming into a baby. It is a literal thing, but that thing is not a person, and for that reason it can’t be called murder. Personhood is an odd thing in a way. A cow cannot have personhood because it’s a cow, it doesn’t have the form nor mental or physical ability of a person, thus its rights in comparison to a human are limited, even though it lives a sensory existence with a brain and central nervous system, just like us. I think a baby is a baby from conception, a potential to be one, but it doesn’t have personhood, it can’t because it doesn’t have the literal form, any more than a cow can have personhood which at the zygote stage of development a cow has greater sensory experience of life than the baby. So I don’t feel the rights of the baby should be that of the rights of a literal person (the mother) in the same way a cow (another sentient life form) doesn’t have them either. Obviously that personhood status is developmental all the way up until it is born. We wouldn’t call a child an adult for the same reason, its because they are a child, and that child doesn’t have the same rights as an adult for obvious reasons, yes they can be murdered because they have personhood.

Whoa, hold on a minute, here. Are you actually comparing the developing infant in the human mother's womb to a cow?
Remind me never to come to a back yard barbeque at your house...

All life has value and we implement rights to that valuable component, which is usually gauged depending on the stage and experiences of the life form as we know it. A baby at the stage of Zygote does not have an experience nor personhood. It would be wrong to judge that life of no value because of the lack of any experience but if the mother (who does have personhood and rights as a result) decides she doesn’t want the baby at this early stage then her rights override the babies, in the same way her rights would override that of a cow. Now obviously we can observe frivolous and selfish behaviour of the said person who has the rights to abort, and in this light it seems unfair etc, but that doesn’t make the overall observation wrong, only the behaviour of the selfish or frivolous person and if that is a concern on mass then parents, teachers and society at large etc need to work harder at eradicating that type of behaviour. Obviously a women who is pressurized into an abortion by a partner or parents or is in a limited financial situation is not making a real free choice as that choice is impacted, but again the right to choose is the standard, based on her having greater rights than the child she carries.

So, you do realize that abortion is, at least most of the time, "frivolous and selfish behavior." Well, that's something, anyway.
But to give the right to terminate a human life over to "frivolous and selfish behavior" seems the very height of irresponsibility.
Yes, we need to work harder to eradicate this type of behavior. One thing we could do is to truly "empower women" by teaching them to place a higher value on their sexuality. Is it truly nothing more than a toy? Something to be wasted on her pimple-faced teenaged date for a half hour's worth of fumbling in the back seat of his Momma's car? Or is it something precious, to be shared with a man who loves her and has promised to care for her?
Didn't I read somewhere about the inadvisability of casting one's pearls before swine?

OH, and this may be off topic, but it is still true that when a man is ready to settle down and raise a family, he very rarely chooses the frivolous and selfish young ladies he knew in his youth. What he wants is a woman who has some pride in herself, and in her sexuality... (I have two brothers, three sons, and lots of guy friends.)

Mother nature informs a mother of her pregnancy in two ways. One is no menstrual cycle, the other is morning sickness at around four to six weeks. My ideal would be for a women to terminate within this period of time prior to say four weeks to limit the physical change that starts occurring in a women’s body which is essentially the morning sickness. From that point on a women will feel she is pregnant, both mentally and physically and potentially problems can arise from that, the more so as time moves forward and also the babies experience of life starts to form and so as the time moves on I’m less supportive of women’s right to choose. Also we need to protect a woman’s mental state with the wording we use and to call it murder is a very poor usage of wording, in the same way killing a cow is not murder. We can call it an unneeded death, an immoral killing, a waste of a life etc (as we can with animals) but its not murder. It you cared about the mental well being of mothers who have aborted you wouldn’t come to a public forum and call it murder. I’m assuming you wouldn’t say that to a grieving women who was looking for your support, so why say it now when there are potentially women who need your support from the 11,000 views on this thread.

What most of you guys are missing here is that Mother Nature also instills in the mother to be the instinct to protect her child at all costs. Don't think so? Go and get between a momma bear and her cubs, or try to fool with a gorilla's newborn...even your family dog will usually growl at strangers who get too close to her puppies. She may not realize it, she may blame her uneasy, guilty feelings on religion, or some other outside influence, but that instinct is there, whether she or the pro choice crowd like to admit it or not.
In other words it is not my theology on her biology that is the problem.....it is the truth of evolution that denies killing as the solution.
Did you know that by the time the woman begins to suspect that she might be pregnant, the baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart have already begun to develop? By the time she's missed her second period there are detectable brain waves, and the lungs have begun to form. By the eleventh to fourteenth week of pregnancy, the developing baby has a recognizable face, finger and toenails, definite genitals...and his liver is busy making red blood cells. It is a human baby, right from the beginning.
You are quite right, I would definitely not tell a woman who has come to me for post abortional counseling a murderer. Most of them come because their own hearts have convicted them of murder. We do not deny it, but bring her to the foot of the cross, where she can lay that guilt at the feet of her Lord, and be forgiven. Tap dancing around the truth with phrases like "unneeded death", "immoral killing", or "a waste of life" do not help anyone, and comparing her dead infant to a cow is an insult to her intelligence.
However, this is not a counseling session. This is Christian Forums. This is a place for truth. I am very sorry if there are women who have aborted who are offended at my use of the term "murder"...however, I do not apologize for it. If those women will look into their hearts, they will know that it is the truth, and will appreciate me for telling it so that they can recognize those feelings they are having for what they are. If they need to speak with a live counselor, there is probably an abortion alternative center near them where they can find loving Christian counselors who will guide them to the One Who can give them peace within themselves. And my prayers go out to them all...every day.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are quite right, I would definitely not tell a woman who has come to me for post abortional counseling a murderer. Most of them come because their own hearts have convicted them of murder. We do not deny it, but bring her to the foot of the cross, where she can lay that guilt at the feet of her Lord, and be forgiven. Tap dancing around the truth with phrases like "unneeded death", "immoral killing", or "a waste of life" do not help anyone, and comparing her dead infant to a cow is an insult to her intelligence.
However, this is not a counseling session. This is Christian Forums. This is a place for truth. I am very sorry if there are women who have aborted who are offended at my use of the term "murder"...however, I do not apologize for it. If those women will look into their hearts, they will know that it is the truth, and will appreciate me for telling it so that they can recognize those feelings they are having for what they are. If they need to speak with a live counselor, there is probably an abortion alternative center near them where they can find loving Christian counselors who will guide them to the One Who can give them peace within themselves. And my prayers go out to them all...every day.

Why should they go to a Christian counsellor at all? What did your training involve?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Whoa, hold on a minute, here. Are you actually comparing the developing infant in the human mother's womb to a cow?
Remind me never to come to a back yard barbeque at your house...

You won’t find a Zygote a baby or a cow on my BBQ because I don’t eat any of them. I was observing life in its experiences and the resultant rights afforded to that experience. Only a baby is protected from the BBQ under the law, the cow and the protein is not, because they are not persons.

So, you do realize that abortion is, at least most of the time, "frivolous and selfish behavior." Well, that's something, anyway.
But to give the right to terminate a human life over to "frivolous and selfish behavior" seems the very height of irresponsibility.
Yes, we need to work harder to eradicate this type of behavior. One thing we could do is to truly "empower women" by teaching them to place a higher value on their sexuality. Is it truly nothing more than a toy? Something to be wasted on her pimple-faced teenaged date for a half hour's worth of fumbling in the back seat of his Momma's car? Or is it something precious, to be shared with a man who loves her and has promised to care for her?
Didn't I read somewhere about the inadvisability of casting one's pearls before swine?

The right still remains the same regardless of the behaviour and that's what gets worked on, on every level. Otherwise the right falls with someone else over what a women does with their body.

OH, and this may be off topic, but it is still true that when a man is ready to settle down and raise a family, he very rarely chooses the frivolous and selfish young ladies he knew in his youth. What he wants is a woman who has some pride in herself, and in her sexuality... (I have two brothers, three sons, and lots of guy friends.)

Choosing a life partner is a wise choice.

What most of you guys are missing here is that Mother Nature also instills in the mother to be the instinct to protect her child at all costs. Don't think so? Go and get between a momma bear and her cubs, or try to fool with a gorilla's newborn...even your family dog will usually growl at strangers who get too close to her puppies. She may not realize it, she may blame her uneasy, guilty feelings on religion, or some other outside influence, but that instinct is there, whether she or the pro choice crowd like to admit it or not.
In other words it is not my theology on her biology that is the problem.....it is the truth of evolution that denies killing as the solution.
Did you know that by the time the woman begins to suspect that she might be pregnant, the baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart have already begun to develop? By the time she's missed her second period there are detectable brain waves, and the lungs have begun to form. By the eleventh to fourteenth week of pregnancy, the developing baby has a recognizable face, finger and toenails, definite genitals...and his liver is busy making red blood cells. It is a human baby, right from the beginning.
You are quite right, I would definitely not tell a woman who has come to me for post abortional counseling a murderer. Most of them come because their own hearts have convicted them of murder. We do not deny it, but bring her to the foot of the cross, where she can lay that guilt at the feet of her Lord, and be forgiven. Tap dancing around the truth with phrases like "unneeded death", "immoral killing", or "a waste of life" do not help anyone, and comparing her dead infant to a cow is an insult to her intelligence.
However, this is not a counseling session. This is Christian Forums. This is a place for truth. I am very sorry if there are women who have aborted who are offended at my use of the term "murder"...however, I do not apologize for it. If those women will look into their hearts, they will know that it is the truth, and will appreciate me for telling it so that they can recognize those feelings they are having for what they are. If they need to speak with a live counselor, there is probably an abortion alternative center near them where they can find loving Christian counselors who will guide them to the One Who can give them peace within themselves. And my prayers go out to them all...every day.

Instinct is a survival mechanism and a resultant action. The feelings involved with guilt and the reasons are wide and varied, I mentioned a women's physical and mental well being as my central focus. Your use of the word murder does not fit any legal definition and is useless in the debate. Also I didn't compare any women's foetus to a cow, I merely was observing life and the experience of it, and remarking on the developmental stages of that, specifically focusing on equal rights for a baby in the womb with that of the mother, as that was what you were asking for. As I said before, emotive conversation does nothing for the debate, and I covered my concerns about abortion in the previous post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There never was any doubt that you are an atheist. After all, it's the "in" thing, these days, isn't it?
What do you think is the "source of guilt" when a young woman contemplates abortion? Do you think it is religious folks like me?
Or could it be something even deeper?

I'm sure you know that, among the animal kingdom, the instinct of the mother to protect her young is pretty much universal, especially among mammals? Get in between a Momma bear and her cubs, or mess with a newborn gorilla, just for the heck of it, and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about. And those gals don't need someone like me to "put my theology on their biology"...they do what they do because it is their nature to do it.

Had it ever occurred to you that the same instinct beats within the heart of the human mother as well?
Perhaps she feels that overwhelming guilt and shame because she is violating her own nature...

I have learned a lot from people who don't think the way that I do over the years. My atheist friends have taught me quite a bit, in fact.
I suggest, my friend, that you stop looking at this guilt that women feel as something imposed on them by religion, and consider the possibility that it just might be our good friend, Mother Nature, seeing to it that the species survives....

Well, to be upfront, I've been an atheist for over 20 years now...and all I've seen of the world only confirms my belief. I wouldn't say atheism is becoming fashionable...I'd say the truth is simply doing what it always does. It pushes dogma into the dustbin of history. It's the way of the world isn't it? So much like the Zoroastrians before you, goes yourself.

As for mother nature, I've seen mammals do some strange things. I've seen mothers eat their young, I've seen fathers murder them, etc etc. It would seem your knowledge of mother nature is a bit lacking.

As for the guilt, yes, in every case it seemed to be a result of a culture of shame. Shame heaped upon them by christians. Sure, I doubt that's the cause for every case of post abortion guilt... but imagine all the suffering that could be alleviated if you simply helped instead of hurting others?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wait a minute. You honestly expect me to tell you whether, in my opinion, a woman doing strenuous exercise that dislodges a newly implanted embryo that she was not aware of is a murderer, right?
First of all, once the little guy has burrowed his way into the lining of the uterus that was ready for him, the chances of dislodging him with jumping jacks, or jogging, or swimming, or any other such activity are pretty slim. In fact, if he could be dislodged so easily, he probably wouldn't have carried to term, anyhow.
However, should such a thing happen, the mother would be completely unaware of it. At the very worst, she might think her period was heavier than normal, but she probably wouldn't worry about it too much.
Is she a murderer? Of course not! Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. The question is ridiculous, and it is one of the reasons I kinda saw you as a smart aleck kid who thought a bit too highly of herself...

So, it turns out that you are a thirty-something man...I stand corrected.
I suppose I should have realized that it had to be a man who came up with that question...

Oops...I guess we've stumbled upon another gap in your knowledge. Never heard of "negligent homicide"?
One need not be intending to murder someone to be guilty of it. Scary thought huh? How many times, unbeknownst to yourself, have you been a murderer? Yet I'm guessing even now you probably don't see yourself that way...

Here's a curious thing to say...

"he probably wouldn't have carried to term, anyhow."

That sounds remarkably like an argument someone else made earlier...oh yea, Me. Lol.

So what would the punishment be for this particular type of homicide in your fantasy land? I get into a low speed car accident...30mph...with a woman exactly 5 days pregnant, and she loses her pregnancy. 10-20 years? 20-30? Should I do life or be sent to the electric chair?

I know this sounds pretty dumb...but it's your position, not mine.

 

[TheBarrd]

Oops...I guess we've stumbled upon another gap in your knowledge. Never heard of "negligent homicide"?
One need not be intending to murder someone to be guilty of it. Scary thought huh? How many times, unbeknownst to yourself, have you been a murderer? Yet I'm guessing even now you probably don't see yourself that way...

Here's a curious thing to say...

"he probably wouldn't have carried to term, anyhow."

That sounds remarkably like an argument someone else made earlier...oh yea, Me. Lol.

So what would the punishment be for this particular type of homicide in your fantasy land? I get into a low speed car accident...30mph...with a woman exactly 5 days pregnant, and she loses her pregnancy. 10-20 years? 20-30? Should I do life or be sent to the electric chair?

I know this sounds pretty dumb...but it's your position, not mine.

You know, I'm beginning to get the feeling that you are trying to make this personal.
You know very well that doing calisthenics is not probable cause for negligent homicide. I'm also pretty sure that even you realize that, at five days, the mother doesn't even suspect that she might be pregnant yet.
And I believe your argument had to do with all of the fertilized eggs that, for one reason or another, do not implant. Most of the time, the parents don't even know there was a fertilized egg.
And sometimes miscarriages happen and no one really knows why. And yes, sometimes that is a cause for grief.

Now, if you have a mother that you know is pregnant, and you drive recklessly with her in your car and there is an accident, then, yes...you are guilty of negligent homicide. What should your sentence be? Whatever the sentence would be for any other death you might cause with reckless driving. Just as if it were a baby in a car seat who had died because of your negligence.

Look, you are never going to change my mind. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. It is the deliberate killing of a human being. It is premeditated and it is planned in advance. You may call the developing child a "zygote" or an "embryo" or whatever, however, all you are doing is describing stages of his/her development.

Anyway, I thought that, according to the pro choice camp, this is supposed to be a woman's issue. Why are you getting so emotional about it?


Now, I am going to ask you as nicely as I can, to try to keep this polite.

 

[TheBarrd]

You won’t find a Zygote a baby or a cow on my BBQ because I don’t eat any of them. I was observing life in its experiences and the resultant rights afforded to that experience. Only a baby is protected from the BBQ under the law, the cow and the protein is not, because they are not persons.

So, are you a vegan, then?
Just curious...

The right still remains the same regardless of the behaviour and that's what gets worked on, on every level. Otherwise the right falls with someone else over what a women does with their body.

Are you saying that the government does not have the right...as well as the responsibility...to make laws that govern our behavior? For instance, it is a woman 's choice if she wants to kill her unborn child, because it is her body...but if she wants to go skinny dipping in the park, she will get arrested, even though it is still her body, right? If she wants to pump her body full of dope, or get herself roaring drunk and go for a drive, her body is going to wind up in jail, yes? And if she should kill another human being, there are still a few places in our country where her body could wind up in a gas chamber.
So we see that some "frivolous and selfish behavior" does carry consequences.

Instinct is a survival mechanism and a resultant action. The feelings involved with guilt and the reasons are wide and varied, I mentioned a women's physical and mental well being as my central focus. Your use of the word murder does not fit any legal definition and is useless in the debate. Also I didn't compare any women's foetus to a cow, I merely was observing life and the experience of it, and remarking on the developmental stages of that, specifically focusing on equal rights for a baby in the womb with that of the mother, as that was what you were asking for. As I said before, emotive conversation does nothing for the debate, and I covered my concerns about abortion in the previous post.

Choosing a life partner is a wise choice.

I wish that were always true. However, how many guys, do you think, would be interested in marrying a girl who has had an abortion in her past? Especially if he wants a family...

Instinct is a survival mechanism and a resultant action. The feelings involved with guilt and the reasons are wide and varied, I mentioned a women's physical and mental well being as my central focus. Your use of the word murder does not fit any legal definition and is useless in the debate. Also I didn't compare any women's foetus to a cow, I merely was observing life and the experience of it, and remarking on the developmental stages of that, s(ecifically focusing on equal rights for a baby in the womb with that of the mother, as that was what you were asking for. As I said before, emotive conversation does nothing for the debate, and I covered my concerns about abortion in the previous post.

Whether people like to admit it or not, a mother's instinct to protect her child is very real. Mom knows that what is growing inside of her is a child, even though you may call it some other scientific name.
Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. First degree murder would require premeditation...the woman thought it over and decided to off the kid...and planning...she made an appointment with the hit man (abortionist) and paid him to do the job and dispose of the body. So, yes...murder is a legally accurate term.
I am not "asking for" information on the legal rights of the mother vs the rights of the child. I know very well that the child has no legal right to life at all...and I am saying that is WRONG. What we have done is to make it legal for a mother to kill her unborn child.
Children in our society have become a throw-away commodity...and, sadly, they know it....

 

[Ana the Ist]

You know, I'm beginning to get the feeling that you are trying to make this personal.
You know very well that doing calisthenics is not probable cause for negligent homicide. I'm also pretty sure that even you realize that, at five days, the mother doesn't even suspect that she might be pregnant yet.
And I believe your argument had to do with all of the fertilized eggs that, for one reason or another, do not implant. Most of the time, the parents don't even know there was a fertilized egg.
And sometimes miscarriages happen and no one really knows why. And yes, sometimes that is a cause for grief.

Now, if you have a mother that you know is pregnant, and you drive recklessly with her in your car and there is an accident, then, yes...you are guilty of negligent homicide. What should your sentence be? Whatever the sentence would be for any other death you might cause with reckless driving. Just as if it were a baby in a car seat who had died because of your negligence.

Look, you are never going to change my mind. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. It is the deliberate killing of a human being. It is premeditated and it is planned in advance. You may call the developing child a "zygote" or an "embryo" or whatever, however, all you are doing is describing stages of his/her development.

Anyway, I thought that, according to the pro choice camp, this is supposed to be a woman's issue. Why are you getting so emotional about it?


Now, I am going to ask you as nicely as I can, to try to keep this polite.

Just trying to show you how ridiculous your position is. I don't mean for it to be personal (I've been referring to your position, haven't I?) but you are mistaken about what is considered negligent homicide...it's not necessary for the killer to be aware they've killed someone.

Feasibly, we can have every woman take pregnancy tests every time they have sex...protected or not...and any positive results can be grounds for homicide in the situation I outlined earlier. We can potentially send many many women and men to jail for many many years to get justice for these lives you so deeply care about.

Is that what you would like to see? I mean certainly outlawing abortion will save some...but what about those lost by other means? How will they find justice? How can we continue as a society with all these killers running free?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

So, are you a vegan, then?
Just curious...

Yes

Are you saying that the government does not have the right...as well as the responsibility...to make laws that govern our behavior? For instance, it is a woman 's choice if she wants to kill her unborn child, because it is her body...but if she wants to go skinny dipping in the park, she will get arrested, even though it is still her body, right? If she wants to pump her body full of dope, or get herself roaring drunk and go for a drive, her body is going to wind up in jail, yes? And if she should kill another human being, there are still a few places in our country where her body could wind up in a gas chamber.
So we see that some "frivolous and selfish behavior" does carry consequences.

There are laws in place to govern functional societies, if the government deems an abortion dysfunctional it has the right to implement the necessary laws and for the people at large to abide by them. But this is the thing, the moment we see sex as something more than a procreation event we implement structure to enable sex to be an enjoyable pleasure. I wouldn’t deny someone that experience. So we have contraceptive measures, heath care initiatives, and teaching etc to enable people to experience sexual relations. If a women falls pregnant and doesn’t want the child then I support her right to abort it, and I won’t judge her for arriving at that point. Of course people will be frivolous and selfish within that set up, but I don’t think the solution to that problem is to ban abortion, the solution lies with support, education, good parenting and so on.

I wish that were always true. However, how many guys, do you think, would be interested in marrying a girl who has had an abortion in her past? Especially if he wants a family...

I don't know, its not a problem I've encountered. If I loved somebody I'd show them the necessary support.

Whether people like to admit it or not, a mother's instinct to protect her child is very real. Mom knows that what is growing inside of her is a child, even though you may call it some other scientific name.

I can’t comment on being a pregnant mum, but protecting offspring is instinctual, fathers feel it too. As I said prior, the knowing comes about through morning sickness, prior to that its just an absent period. Clearly as a women’s body changes ongoing throughout the pregnancy and she is going to know she’s pregnant. That said we see some women have babies that didn’t know they were pregnant and are totally shocked when they arrive at full term?

Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. First degree murder would require premeditation...the woman thought it over and decided to off the kid...and planning...she made an appointment with the hit man (abortionist) and paid him to do the job and dispose of the body. So, yes...murder is a legally accurate term.
I am not "asking for" information on the legal rights of the mother vs the rights of the child. I know very well that the child has no legal right to life at all...and I am saying that is WRONG. What we have done is to make it legal for a mother to kill her unborn child.
Children in our society have become a throw-away commodity...and, sadly, they know it...

As I said before emotive conversation does nothing for the debate. You are entitled to say anything is WRONG and state your claim, but when we attribute rights they have to be legally identified with sound reasoning.