Abortion is always wrong

[arunangelo]

Women have abortions for many reasons. They include: unwed or teenage pregnancies, pregnancies due to rape or incest, fetal deformities and inconvenience. Abortion is the worst type of violence and an extreme act of terrorism; because, it terrorizes and kills, innocent and helpless human beings. It is also the worst crime a human being can commit, because, in this act a mother, who is supposed to protect and nurture her baby, gets her own innocent baby killed. It therefore, brings perpetual unrest to the people who have it and the society that permits it. Some people justify abortion, because, they feel that a fetus is not a human being. However, irrespective of the different arguments people have, for or against, to prove that fetuses or human embryos are human beings; no one can deny the fact that abortion is destruction of a genetically distinct human life. In addition, since a large number of people feel that a fetus or an embryo is a human being, it is our duty to protect them (even if we do not consider them as human beings), because, if others are correct, then, destroying a fetus or embryo is murder. If a group of people went hunting, and half of them see an animal in the distant and want to shoot it, but the other half think it is a human being, the benefit of the doubt has to be in favor of it being a human being. The same logic also applies to abortion. Some people realize that abortion is wrong; however, they do not want to force their belief on others. However, protecting the life of innocent human beings is our civic duty, and has nothing to do with our belief. We have laws against murder, although it is a religious belief that murder is wrong. In this case we don’t say that we are imposing our belief on others. Others argue that a woman has a right to choose to not have a baby. However, when a woman becomes pregnant, she already has the baby; therefore, the question about her right with respect to that pregnancy is not an issue. Some people justify abortion, because, the mother's health or life is in danger. However, since every human life is equally precious, one cannot take the life of one human being to save another. Therefore, every effort has to be made to treat both human beings with the best available methods. Still others feel that women should have the right to their own bodies. However, a fetus is not part of its mother’s body, because, it is a distinct living human entity with its own unique genetic make up that is different from the mother’s. We do not have right to kill our children who live in the privacy of our house. Similarly, the mother does not have a right to kill her baby that lives in the privacy of her body. Still others argue that, by legalizing abortion, abortion is made safe for the mother. We, however, do not legalize other violent crimes in order prevent injury to the criminal or innocent bystanders.

 

[Kris_J]

What is your position on keeping alive an innocent & helpless but utterly braindead human being?

When does a fetus form a brain?

Don't get me wrong, I personally would never choose to have an abortion, but I do not want my right to choose to be run over.

 

[David Gould]

Women have abortions for many reasons. They include: unwed or teenage pregnancies, pregnancies due to rape or incest, fetal deformities and inconvenience. Abortion is the worst type of violence and an extreme act of terrorism; because, it terrorizes and kills, innocent and helpless human beings. It is also the worst crime a human being can commit, because, in this act a mother, who is supposed to protect and nurture her baby, gets her own innocent baby killed.

Big questions here over the 'supposed to' bit. Sounds a bit like begging the quesiton.

There is also the extreme appeal to emotion - 'helpless' 'innocent' and 'terrorises'. These words do nothing to assist your case in a logical sense; indeed, in those who do not believe that a fetus below a certain time period has the ability to be terrorised (if it is not sentient, how can it feel terror?) you immediately cause a negative response. Linking abortion with terrorism is also a big warning sign that says your argument is going to be one based on emotive appeal, rather than logic.

Calling it a crime, too, is not helpful, considering that it is actually legal. You are trying to get it defined as a crime. You cannot simply assert that it is in your argument.

It therefore, brings perpetual unrest to the people who have it and the society that permits it.

It brings unrest to the society because people disagree on the issue. It brings unrest to individuals because the issue is not clear cut.

Some people justify abortion, because, they feel that a fetus is not a human being. However, irrespective of the different arguments people have, for or against, to prove that fetuses or human embryos are human beings; no one can deny the fact that abortion is destruction of a genetically distinct human life.

But that is precisely what they are denying - that a fetus is a human. Saying that they cannot deny it does nothing. It is simply an assertion. You need an argument.

In addition, since a large number of people feel that a fetus or an embryo is a human being, it is our duty to protect them (even if we do not consider them as human beings), because, if others are correct, then, destroying a fetus or embryo is murder. If a group of people went hunting, and half of them see an animal in the distant and want to shoot it, but the other half think it is a human being, the benefit of the doubt has to be in favor of it being a human being. The same logic also applies to abortion.

Does it? In my thinking, this is more like what the abortion debate is like:

One group of people define 'human' in one way; another group of people define 'human' in another way. Thus, a person from each of the groups could be looking at the same thing and not agree on whether it was human or not.

It has nothing to do whether a fetus is 'really human' - whatever that means. Instead, it has to do with definitions. People from both sides of the debate see the same thing when they look at a scan of a pregnant woman's womb. They just define it differently.

Some people realize that abortion is wrong; however, they do not want to force their belief on others. However, protecting the life of innocent human beings is our civic duty, and has nothing to do with our belief. We have laws against murder, although it is a religious belief that murder is wrong. In this case we don’t say that we are imposing our belief on others.

What if someone believed that many more innocent lives could be saved by allowing abortion to be legal?

Others argue that a woman has a right to choose to not have a baby. However, when a woman becomes pregnant, she already has the baby; therefore, the question about her right with respect to that pregnancy is not an issue.

If you do not define a fetus as a baby then your argument fails. This is the problem - one of definitions. If you are to argue against abortion being legal you need to understand the minds of your oponents a little better.

Some people justify abortion, because, the mother's health or life is in danger. However, since every human life is equally precious, one cannot take the life of one human being to save another.

Can you risk one life to save another? What level of risk do you allow?

Therefore, every effort has to be made to treat both human beings with the best available methods.

And if the best available method is a choice between allowing both to die or killing one to save the other, which is more moral?

Still others feel that women should have the right to their own bodies. However, a fetus is not part of its mother’s body, because, it is a distinct living human entity with its own unique genetic make up that is different from the mother’s. We do not have right to kill our children who live in the privacy of our house. Similarly, the mother does not have a right to kill her baby that lives in the privacy of her body.

Again, definition. If I do not define a fetus as a baby, or as a distinct living human entity, then your argument fails.

Still others argue that, by legalizing abortion, abortion is made safe for the mother. We, however, do not legalize other violent crimes in order prevent injury to the criminal or innocent bystanders.

Killing is legalised in certain circumstances - self-defence, for example, or even property protection in some areas. This is to protect the perpetrators of such killings.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Abortion is always wrong

AMEN!!!!

 

[scraparcs]

I'm a bit concerned about the argument from the life of the mother. What if there is an ectopic pregnancy? What if there is severe risk to the mother and she already has other children to care for?

It can be argued that abortion is generally wrong, but even for one who is committed to the life of the fetus/embryo, it still isn't a black and white issue if the life of the mother is in danger.

 

[Caprice]

There is also the extreme appeal to emotion

What is wrong with appealing to one's emotions? It is my belief that there are too many people who errantly choose logic over emotion.

 

[Douglas Darkwater]

They include: unwed or teenage pregnancies, pregnancies due to rape or incest, fetal deformities and inconvenience

You conveniently left out health risks to the mother

Abortion is the worst type of violence and an extreme act of terrorism

Terrorism-
...The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing...

terrorism-
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
(Mirriam-Webster Dictionary)


This is an offensive exploitation of the current paranoia regarding REAL acts of terrorism. Your attempt to evoke the strong emotions, that many feel towards militant fundamentalists that fly planes into buildings, against a position you oppose is in poor taste. For your strawman, I have a torch.

It is also the worst crime a human being can commit, because, in this act a mother, who is supposed to protect and nurture her baby, gets her own innocent baby killed.

So if a woman is raped, and subsequently impregnated as a result, and should she seek to terminate the pregnancy, which is a constant reminder of her attack, she has committed an even greater crime than her rapist? That's exactly what she needs on her conscious. RAPE is the most horrific crime anyone can commit. But all you need to do is read Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to see what the Bible says about that.

.It therefore, brings perpetual unrest to the people who have it and the society that permits it.

Do you have statistics that show this to be true?

no one can deny the fact that abortion is destruction of a genetically distinct human life.

Anyone can deny this. I happen to agree with you on this point, however.

In addition, since a large number of people feel that a fetus or an embryo is a human being, it is our duty to protect them (even if we do not consider them as human beings), because, if others are correct, then, destroying a fetus or embryo is murder

If the fetus is determined to be a human being then it would be homicide, not necessarily murder. Also, on the first point( in bold ), do you have poll results or statistics to support the claim that most people consider a fetus, much less an embryo, to be human life and under the protection of the law?

However, protecting the life of innocent human beings is our civic duty, and has nothing to do with our belief.

Not only do I agree with this point, I find it refreshing to hear someone suggest the possibility of a secular source of morals.

We have laws against murder, although it is a religious belief that murder is wrong.

No, it is a practical belief. We do not need religion to dictate to us what is right or wrong. We know the difference. Besides, some religions believe that slavery, child abuse, and genital mutilation are right.

In this case we don’t say that we are imposing our belief on others.

Enforcing laws and forcing beliefs on someone are two different things, unless you live in a theocracy ( take a look at history to see how those have worked out).

Some people justify abortion, because, the mother's health or life is in danger. However, since every human life is equally precious, one cannot take the life of one human being to save another.

So a pair of siamese twins must remain conjoined because a separation will most likely be fatal to the weaker of the two? A woman must accept that she is going to either face serious health risks, and possibly even death, when there is a solution that will save her life.That is for her to chose, not you or me or any one else. It is HER decision to make.

Therefore, every effort has to be made to treat both human beings with the best available methods.

Again, I agree. However, when all measures have been exhausted, if the only feasible option is to abort, nobody has the right to make that decision for her. And no one has the right to judge her.

However, a fetus is not part of its mother’s body, because, it is a distinct living human entity with its own unique genetic make up that is different from the mother’s.

The fetus is very much a part of the woman's body as it recieves blood, oxygen, and nourishment through the placenta and umbilical chord.

We do not have right to kill our children who live in the privacy of our house.

Actually, the Bible says otherwise:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Still others argue that, by legalizing abortion, abortion is made safe for the mother.

If abortion were not available, legally, to those who seek it, then there are those that would still find a way. A visit to a doctors office is a much better alternative to sitting in a bathroom, clutching a coat hanger.

.We, however, do not legalize other violent crimes in order prevent injury to the criminal or innocent bystanders

This is a good point. This is another reason why this issue will never be abated. However, the current stance of the law is, simply, not to interfere with a womans decision regarding her life and her body. If abortion is against the laws of this Universe, then it is still the woman's choice to make that decision. It is not for our government to decide.

I am, above all, pro-life. I believe that most cases of abortion are not cases of absolute necessity. However, there are circumstances that arise in which no one has the right to interfere with a womans right to chose her own path (rape, incest, health, for starters). I also believe that some women feel that they cannot possibility provide the care that a child needs. This one is a concern for me.This is a problem, not just for the individual, but for society. Instead of wasting our efforts arguing whether or not a woman should have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, we should, instead, fix the societal problems that cause the necessity for such a choice.


By the way, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids the willful termination of a pregnancy by the mother.

 

[Kris_J]

Terrorism-
...The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing...

terrorism-
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
(Mirriam-Webster Dictionary)


This is an offensive exploitation of the current paranoia regarding REAL acts of terrorism. Your attempt to evoke the strong emotions, that many feel towards militant fundamentalists that fly planes into buildings, against a position you oppose is in poor taste. For your strawman, I have a torch.

Worst still - it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[JLlovesJC]

I do agree abortion is always wrong...and i do not believe it is a woman's choice to decide...what about the baby that can't think for themselves...that baby is alive upon conception because God has blessed that child with a life already planned out for him/her. I love children and would do anything for their fight...

 

[JLlovesJC]

although...If you have had an abortion i am not angry with you because you are forgiven

 

[blackwasp]

I love children and would do anything for their fight...

Like voting republican?

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I'm a bit concerned about the argument from the life of the mother. What if there is an ectopic pregnancy? What if there is severe risk to the mother and she already has other children to care for?

It can be argued that abortion is generally wrong, but even for one who is committed to the life of the fetus/embryo, it still isn't a black and white issue if the life of the mother is in danger.

This is still not justification for killing a baby. What if a mother has a ten month old child and cannot afford to feed herself because of the baby. Without food, she will die. Should she then also be allowed to kill the child? What if that mother needs a new heart and the child is the only one that has one that will match and without it she will die? Should she be allowed to take it? Where do we draw the line. A mother takes the risk of dying in childbirth. That is the fact. This does not mean she should then be allowed to commit murder to avoid it.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

although...If you have had an abortion i am not angry with you because you are forgiven

Only if they have sought forgiveness by Jesus Christ. Otherwise the person who has done such a thing is under severe condemnation.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Abortion isn't always wrong, especially if you have a scenario where the fetus is severely deformed, and it is also a pregnancy where the mother's life is at stake. Given the fact that the deformity can mean no more than a few days or few months, to say that the mother must die is the most cold-hearted attitude ever, and I think only one who is stiffly dogmatic by refusing to think about the issue beyond the illogical black and white.

I think it's comparable to conjoined twins and both babies will die. You have to make a choice, or both die. Do you do nothing and let them die, or separate the two, thus giving at least one an independent life?

 

[charmtrap]

Some people justify abortion, because, they feel that a fetus is not a human being. However, irrespective of the different arguments people have, for or against, to prove that fetuses or human embryos are human beings; no one can deny the fact that abortion is destruction of a genetically distinct human life. In addition, since a large number of people feel that a fetus or an embryo is a human being, it is our duty to protect them (even if we do not consider them as human beings), because, if others are correct, then, destroying a fetus or embryo is murder.

Since the question of 'personhood' is the crux of the argument, and since you've basically punted on that question, the rest of your 'argument' is mere assertion and appeal to emotion, and therefore eminently ignorable.

 

[The Seeker]

In addition, since a large number of people feel that a fetus or an embryo is a human being, it is our duty to protect them (even if we do not consider them as human beings), because, if others are correct, then, destroying a fetus or embryo is murder.

I believe that every time you sing "Oh come all ye faithful" a pixie dies of bowel cancer. Sure I might be wrong, but if I'm correct then singing that song is pixicide.

 

[jayem]

Where do we draw the line. A mother takes the risk of dying in childbirth. That is the fact. This does not mean she should then be allowed to commit murder to avoid it.

Suppose your wife developed cancer early in pregnancy (this really happened--not a hypothetical) and needed radiation and chemotherapy. Which as you know, might well cause an abortion (and in such circumstances, might lead to life-threatening hemorrhage.) Or she could forgo treatment for several months until she could be safely delivered. But that would allow the cancer to progress and may reduce her chances for a successful remission. Her best chance is to terminate the pregnancy under controlled conditions and start cancer treatment immediately.

You can pray about it, and consult your spiritual advisor--but a decision has to made--and sooner rather than later.

Now It's perfectly rational to choose to postpone cancer treatment in order to save the pregnancy--as long as you know and accept the risk. I can respect that it may be the right decision for you and your family. But I hope you don't think our laws should force that same decision on everyone.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Suppose your wife developed cancer early in pregnancy (this really happened--not a hypothetical) and needed radiation and chemotherapy. Which as you know, might well cause an abortion (and in such circumstances, might lead to life-threatening hemorrhage.) Or she could forgo treatment for several months until she could be safely delivered. But that would allow the cancer to progress and may reduce her chances for a successful remission. Her best chance is to terminate the pregnancy under controlled conditions and start cancer treatment immediately.

You can pray about it, and consult your spiritual advisor--but a decision has to made--and sooner rather than later.

Now It's perfectly rational to choose to postpone cancer treatment in order to save the pregnancy--as long as you know and accept the risk. I can respect that it may be the right decision for you and your family. But I hope you don't think our laws should force that same decision on everyone.

And I think this lends further credence that nothing is black and white in this world. To treat everything like that shows an inability to open one's mind, in my opinion.

 

[Abner Cadaver]

If a fetus is a baby why is it inside the woman?
Why in the Bible did killing a person deserve death but killing a fetus got a fine?

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Suppose your wife developed cancer early in pregnancy (this really happened--not a hypothetical) and needed radiation and chemotherapy. Which as you know, might well cause an abortion (and in such circumstances, might lead to life-threatening hemorrhage.) Or she could forgo treatment for several months until she could be safely delivered. But that would allow the cancer to progress and may reduce her chances for a successful remission. Her best chance is to terminate the pregnancy under controlled conditions and start cancer treatment immediately.

You can pray about it, and consult your spiritual advisor--but a decision has to made--and sooner rather than later.

Now It's perfectly rational to choose to postpone cancer treatment in order to save the pregnancy--as long as you know and accept the risk. I can respect that it may be the right decision for you and your family. But I hope you don't think our laws should force that same decision on everyone.

If she chose to murder the baby and made it through the cancer, she would be single.