Abortion is always wrong

[Lyric's Dad]

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.

Open minds do not murder children. If that is openmindedness, I will stay very closed, thank you.

 

[charmtrap]

Open minds do not murder children.

Whew. Good thing no-one is talking about murdering children. Embryos, on the other hand...well, what have they ever done for us, I'd like to know?

 

[Abner Cadaver]

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

This is the kind of logic that makes 75% of the American electorate support abortion on demand.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

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

And if you chose to force her to have the baby and she died shortly after, you'd probably have a kid that hates you when he finds out the truth.

 

[Archivist]

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.

I am personally opposed to abortion, however I remain pro-choice because I believe that the final decision must be left up to pregnant woman. To ban abortion would, I believe, merely take us back to the back-alley butcher shops.

That being said, I largely understand the pro-life view. We would agree that we all want to reduce the number of abortions, we simply come at it from different points of view.

The point where I draw the line is where people say that no woman should have the right to an abortion even if her health or life is in danger. The fact is that none of us has the right to tell a woman that we have decided that she must die in order for her fetus to live. That decision cannot be made by anyone other than the pregnant woman herself. The woman's husband does not have that right, nor does her pastor, nor does the leader of her particular faith.

 

[Phinehas]

Whew. Good thing no-one is talking about murdering children. Embryos, on the other hand...well, what have they ever done for us, I'd like to know?

I know. What about murdering people during the holocaust?
Whew. It's a good thing the Jews weren't people.

Embryos, on the other hand...well, what have they ever done for us, I'd like to know?

One of 'em grew up to be you.


Step 1lace hand on the foot in mouth
Step 2:remove foot from mouth
(maybe Cthulhu can help)

 

[Ben Borg Again]

god and the bible is not pro-life

Ex 21: 22-25

paraphraseing:

If 2 men are fighting and injure a prego woman in the process, if she miscarries then the man is to pay a monetary fine for the dead fetus.

If the woman is injured, they shall injure the man in the same way ( eye for an eye)

If the woman dies, the man shall be executed.

Two completely different standards to the VALUE of a fetuses life and the woman.

The dead fetus is worth some money or a few livestock, whatever the judeges and husband agree too,

While the womans death is capital punishment.



Therefore GOd ( who supposedly wrote this passage) does not consider killing a fetus as murder.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Therefore God ( who supposedly wrote this passage) does not consider killing a fetus as murder.

Maybe that should be the standard, you must give a goat or two if you wish to have an abortion.

That means that Scott Peterson should be put to death, but not before giving the family of his wife some livestock and money.

 

[Phinehas]

god and the bible is not pro-life

Ex 21: 22-25

paraphraseing:

If 2 men are fighting and injure a prego woman in the process, if she miscarries then the man is to pay a monetary fine for the dead fetus.

If the woman is injured, they shall injure the man in the same way ( eye for an eye)

If the woman dies, the man shall be executed.

Two completely different standards to the VALUE of a fetuses life and the woman.

The dead fetus is worth some money or a few livestock, whatever the judeges and husband agree too,

While the womans death is capital punishment.



Therefore GOd ( who supposedly wrote this passage) does not consider killing a fetus as murder.

I guess it really depends on who does the paraphrasing, doesn't it?

Exodus Chap. 21 (KJV)
"22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

(NIV)
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Pemeture birth isn't the same as death of the child. Read the same passages and realize that it speaks of harm, or serious injury, done to the child as well as the mother. So, this considered, if the life of the child is taken, the life of the perpetrator is payment for the transgression. If there is harm to neither wife nor child, even though there is a premeture birth, then the husband and the court decide what the fine should be.

P.S.
By the by, the word "fetus" was Latin for or "offspring" (some think it might be Greek in origin, but I'm not Greek nor have I done an exhaustive Greek word study- so I'll just take the word of those who have, and give you the definite answer "maybe" as it might actually still be under debate... or not. "An excellent example of the confusion resulting from this borrowing of words from various languages is the word foetus / fetus. It never was Greek, according to the Oxford team. It always was Latin: fetus, a noun of the fourth (count them) declension." )
Nowadays the anti-life rights activists like to use it to delineate a difference between "baby" and "fetus". I.E. "It's not a baby, it's a fetus." Well according to the latin usage- where we most directly get our word from- it was offspring. According to the latin I could still be called the "fetus" of my parents. Remember that the previous usage of where we get the word from would, if allowed into the forray, erase the supposed "line of demarkation" which might separate "fetus" and "baby" (and teenager and adult -for that matter).

 

[Ninja Turtles]

However, the Jews don't read the verses that way.

 

[Chajara]

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

I feel really freaking sorry for your wife if you're married. Because, you know, I'd love to go through the horror of chemo or radiation, lose my baby, and then have my husband, who I promised to love forever and who PROMISED TO LOVE ME as well, say "You're a murderer, here are some divorce papers."

 

[Archivist]

I feel really freaking sorry for your wife if you're married. Because, you know, I'd love to go through the horror of chemo or radiation, lose my baby, and then have my husband, who I promised to love forever and who PROMISED TO LOVE ME as well, say "You're a murderer, here are some divorce papers."

Well said!!!

 

[Phinehas]

However, the Jews don't read the verses that way.

Wish we knew who, exactly, you're talking to.

 

[The Seeker]

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

What a horrible person you are.

 

[Corran]

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

So if a person attacks your wife and there is a very high chance that she will be killed and she kills this person in self defence you will leave her?
Oh and also it is not murder as murder =
The UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated MALICE. Note the words in bold.

 

[Milla]

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.

Exactly. I do believe that abortion is generally wrong, but the topic of this thread is very empty of the shades of grey that characterize real life. If a pregancy is not a viable pregnancy - it will not result in a living born child, no matter what - and is liable to kill the mother (as in the case of ectopic pregancy, and a few other medical ailments), I frankly do not understand how one can advocate that both the foetus AND the mother must die.

I would venture to say that it is not abortion if the baby is already functionally dead.

 

[David Gould]

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.

Appealing to emotions often results in irrational things being done - for example, the stirring up of hatred and violence against those who carry out abortions. Emotion is a dangerous thing to let loose at times.

Appealing to emotion is also an ineffective tactic to use on those who put logic first. I am merely trying to provide some advice on how the poster could improve her argument.

 

[craigba]

I wonder is abortion from the point of veiw of the Old versus the New Testament would be different.

The Old Testament seems to be rather harsh on any sin. When a man has intercourse with a married woman both are to be stoned to death, kind of thing. The Bible seems to also condemn the unborn child of that woman if she had gotten pregnant.

The New Testament how ever seems be a lot more forgiving and would seem to aviod killing anyone until the Revelation.

My two cents,

Craig "Sciguy"

 

[scraparcs]

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.

As much as I value life, when the only choice is child versus parent, it is up to the parent to make that decision.

Childbirth does have risks, but I believe that if the option is abortion vs. death of the mother and child (or even death of the mother), abortion may be a wise procedure to at least save the life of the mother.

 

[bliz]

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.

The question was eptopic pregnencies. There is no "risk" of death with an eptopic pregnency - it is a guaranteed outcome, death for both mother and baby. Do you stand by your argument that abortion is always wrong? If you do, I suggest that you not mention to the women in your life that you value their lives so little.