Abortion is MURDER!!!!!

[lux et lex]

If I had my arms, legs and genitalia removed after an accident and was in hospital in a coma; dependent on others for survival; would I still be a human? Yes. So human-ness isn't just physical. There is more to it.

But anyone would be able to take care of you, more than one designated person who is essentially being forced to do so. That's the argument. Any degree of disability has the transferability of care. A fetus does not.

 

[liesje]

But anyone would be able to take care of you, more than one designated person who is essentially being forced to do so. That's the argument. Any degree of disability has the transferability of care. A fetus does not.

Yes, but why in the world should that matter? The question isn't who cares for it but whether it's human or not.

If we did to an animal what an abortionist does to the unborn child, I would be arrested and probably given a few years in jail for cruelty to animals.

 

[lux et lex]

Yes, but why in the world should that matter? The question isn't who cares for it but whether it's human or not.

If we did to an animal what an abortionist does to the unborn child, I would be arrested and probably given a few years in jail for cruelty to animals.

It can't be a human being if its care cannot be transfered. I never said it wasn't human (having human characteristics), it is just not a human being, ie a person.

 

[liesje]

It can't be a human being if its care cannot be transfered. I never said it wasn't human (having human characteristics), it is just not a human being, ie a person.

Whyever not? What if someone extremely disabled was stuck out in the middle of a huge desert with only one carer...does that mean they're not a human being? If it's human and a being why is it not a human being?

 

[Phinehas2]

LyraJean,

I don't know know Britain's free speech laws so I cannot give an informed opinion on the article.

Poor response, you can see their freedom has been denied. As its ok to abort up to 12 weeks in the UK in what way would this be illegal in any way, harassment and causing distress? Its perfectly obvious that many in society simply place their selfish desires for sexual freedom before their responsibility for the consequences of their actions even to killing babies. As Malcolm Muggeridge said, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has replaced the cross.

Perhaps their group could start a counseling program for women thinking of getting an abortion.

Perhaps they have, or perhaps many others need to do the same to highlight the atrocity. Perhaps you could get behind them and pay the court fees.

Finding out why these women are considering abortion as an option and then try to change their minds without heaping guilt and shame upon them. Or they could start adopting children.

I don’t think so, many women suffer the scars of continued emotional and psychological stress, guilt and shame following abortions, putting them off seems a good thing. Besides the church already does this, there is no guilt and shame in Christ, all can be forgiven, all this poster is pointing to is repentance.

 

[yourstrulyjulie]

Aside from rape victims, the women have brought them on themselves. If they were following Christian morals, this wouldn't even be an issue. They need to take responsibility for their actions and not murder their child out just because it makes their life easier.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

But anyone would be able to take care of you, more than one designated person who is essentially being forced to do so. That's the argument. Any degree of disability has the transferability of care. A fetus does not.

I think your argument is alarmingly dysfunctional, a baby once born can no more survive unaided than the baby in the womb which you call a foetus, so I don’t see why you defend murdering a baby in the womb which you call a foetus, but presumably not a baby when born.

It can't be a human being if its care cannot be transfered. I never said it wasn't human (having human characteristics), it is just not a human being, ie a person.

good answer this…

Whyever not? What if someone extremely disabled was stuck out in the middle of a huge desert with only one carer...does that mean they're not a human being? If it's human and a being why is it not a human being?

I think you have made that rule up for yourself. I see no definitions of humans being where care cannot be transferred either.

 

[Phinehas2]

Aside from rape victims, the women have brought them on themselves. If they were following Christian morals, this wouldn't even be an issue. They need to take responsibility for their actions and not murder their child out just because it makes their life easier.

Exactly! This is the key point. Sure women may be stressed but the education needs to be that apart from rape there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, as soon as one has sexual intercourse one is doing what nature intended to reproduce. What we have is a society that thinks sexual satisfaction is so important that everything revolves around it.

 

[lux et lex]

Whyever not? What if someone extremely disabled was stuck out in the middle of a huge desert with only one carer...does that mean they're not a human being? If it's human and a being why is it not a human being?

Oh let's make up an extreme and unlikely example. You know what I mean and are skirting the issue.

 

[Phinehas2]

Lux et Lex,

Oh let's make up an extreme and unlikely example. You know what I mean and are skirting the issue.

No it means your claim isnt so. I think you have made that rule up for yourself. I see no definitions of humans being where care cannot be transferred either.

 

[liesje]

Oh let's make up an extreme and unlikely example. You know what I mean and are skirting the issue.

Yes, it's unlikely. But it's the principle, not the particular example. The point is that you still haven't answered my question. Yes - the fetus relies on its mother alone. Why does that make the difference between whether we should be allowed to kill it or not? What is personhood, and why does it depend on who's looking after the baby?

 

[Phinehas2]

I alos await the response from lux et lex as to what is personhood, and why does it depend on who's looking after the baby?

But I would point to this post on the Abortion responsibility thread as I belieev we have the same essential issue on both threads. to Lux et Lex..

You could have argued that life does not begin with conception but rather e.g. with coming out of the womb, and again you could have argued "that's what the Bible says", in which case we could easily have reduced your case to nil with the help of the Bible only. That is not however what you did. What you did was to make clear, time after time, that the issue at hand can only be settled by individual opinion.
​

And how does it matter that someone might "relish" in the fact, as far as your case is concerned? Not in the least! That is not an argument that you have there. It is what you call a "red herring": You are trying to divert attention away from the issue.

Besides that, seeing as you wanted to reduce the issue to a matter of mere individual opinion, you have to face it on this one: There is a 50% chance that you are wrong. For the very same reason (and as Phineas correctly stated) what is "Biblical" does not have the slightest chance of playing a part in your argumentation. The only thing that you have on your side is your opinion, and it may as well be wrong. Speaking in terms of possibilities there is a 50% chance. When the Bible is taken into consideration things are quite different and a 50% chance of being right becomes no chance at all, see Luke chapter 1.

In addition to all of the above, by mere common sense and ordinary logic it is very difficult to look away from the fact that there is a continuity from conception to birth. No matter the point in that chain at which you might want to say "this is where life begins," it is hard to deny failure to recognize said continuity. If that does not impress you, it could be argued that life begins at some point after birth, assuming i.e. that you could have a point. But that is not at all necessary, of course.
​

 

[LyraJean]

So you make abortion illegal, how would you enforce that law? What would the punishment be for those who commit abortion and have an abortion? If you see it as murder would it be a death penalty case or just jail time? How would you differentiate between a self-induced abortion and a natural miscarriage?

 

[Phinehas2]

LyraJean,
So you would want killing babies by choice to continue to be legal? How do you think murder is normally enforced?

Sorry but I believe it should start with education, knowing and accepting the consequences and responsibilites of sexual intercourse and conception.

 

[LyraJean]

I have no problem with keeping abortion legal.

Can you answer my questions?

 

[Phinehas2]

LyraJean,
Dont give me the answer my question routine, I was merely responding to the tangental points you made.
I believe abortion by choice should be illegal because killing is illegal and abortion is killing babies. The enforcement of the law and the penalties could be the same as for manslaughter and murder.

But I believe education is the most important step.

 

[LyraJean]

LyraJean,
The enforcement of the law and the penalties could be the same as for manslaughter and murder.

But I believe education is the most important step.

So would you allow for the investigation of every miscarriage as a potential self-induced abortion?

 

[Phinehas2]

LyraJean,

So would you allow for the investigation of every miscarriage as a potential self-induced abortion?

Probably not, but as I said I believe education is the most imporatnt step, to educate and teach that pro-choice abortion is killing a life that is the natural result of sexual intercourse and conception, and therefore not an option.
I am happy for education to be in place way ahead of making pro-choice abortion illegal.

 

[LyraJean]

LyraJean,
Probably not, but as I said I believe education is the most imporatnt step, to educate and teach that pro-choice abortion is killing a life that is the natural result of sexual intercourse and conception, and therefore not an option.
I am happy for education to be in place way ahead of making pro-choice abortion illegal.

Okay I can go with that. Although in all my years of school and I went to public schools in sex ed they never really talked about abortion. The only time they did was in relation to rape and then it was about the morning after pill.

A lot of it was about abstinence and safe and effective birth control.

 

[Phinehas2]

LyraJean,
I think we might agree there, the abortion law was brought in for certian cases, not for pro-choice, the availability and lack of education has casued the system to be abused.
Should be interesting to see how education can be put in place, a couple merely holding a banner showing an aborted baby of 12 weeks got arrested. Clearly the sort of pictoral education that would really bring it home to people how evil pro-choice abortion is, is too alarming for people to be allowed to see, and the idol worship of sex has made the idea that sex should be limited to a faithful marriage and reproduction somewhat off the agenda.

Also there is a need, on the one hand to make sure people do not feel guilty if they have had an abortion, and that the truth is not to be demonised by objectors either.