Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You shouldn't begin your post by purporting to be an authority on the reasoning behind your oppositions position. It makes about as much sense and an atheist speaking authoritatively on the "logic" used by Christian believers. You'll only display your own ignorance.AliveInChrist said:In this country, many people believe that abortion is nothing more than a regular surgery, just removing a meaningless blob of protoplasm. They see it as morally acceptable and believe it must remain legal. These people reason inconsistently that life begins late in a womans pregnancy. They use viability as a means of telling when a baby becomes human.
Is that so? Then surely you can tell us all which rule of logic it violates.This is incredibly illogical.
1.) What does marriage have anything to do with conception, pregnancy or abortion?They say that women should have a choice over her own body. But she did have a choice, the choice not to have sex outside of marriage or without protection!
If you think having an abortion is convenient, then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.If her life is threatened, the government must allow her to abort. But cases such as these are incredibly rare. According to National Right to Life, only 7% of abortions are performed as a result of sexual abuse or a mothers health. That means 93% of abortions are done out of convenience!
Says you, and you are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, however.People reason that birth control is not infallible, saying that if birth control fail, the woman has a right to abort. But this view is highly immoral,
Utterly ridiculous, as explained above. Consent to sex is not consent to an unwanted pregnancy.because any time one chooses to be sexually intimate, one accepts the fact that there is always a risk. Therefore, birth control failure, although not the womans fault, it is her responsibility to know the risks and weigh her options before choosing to have sex. If she fails to do this, she is responsible for her decision, and must carry out her pregnancy.
And neither should she be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will. It's called the "right to bodily integrity" and it is a fundamental right that every person enjoys equally.In the event that the woman is not financially able to support her child, she always has the option to put her child up for adoption through many reputable adoption agency. Americans should not be forced to pay the price for irresponsibility.
I'll refrain from comment on the Bible verses and just point out that God Himself has ordered the deaths of pregnant women and their babies, so it doesn't seem to be something that He has a problem with in all circumstances. How do you know that God hasn't ordered the deaths of all the embryos and fetuses that happen in abortion clinics today? You don't.BIBLE
As for Biblical evidence against abortion...The Bible says that life begins at conception. Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
Yet You brought me out of the womb; You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon You; from my mother's womb You have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).
Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).
Know that the LORD is God. It is He who made us, and we are His; we are His people, the sheep of His pasture (Psalm 100:3)
This is what the LORD says--He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you (Isaiah 44:2).
And now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5)
He also said to turn the other cheek. Which one is true?RAPE OR INCEST
Aborting to protect the life of the mother is OK according to the Bible, as said in Exodus 21:23, If any mischief follow, than thou shalt take life for life.
Pathetic well-poisoning.Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. A study of one thousand rape victims who were treated after the rape reported no pregnancies. There are no known studies of incest cases. Medically, we know pregnancy in these cases would be rare. As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion.
Again, your description of abortion as "convenient" only betrays your complete ignorance about the topic. And exactly how "convenient" is a forced nine months of pregnancy?But according to www.nrlc.org, 93% of all abortions are performed out of convenience, and only 7% are done for the reasons of rape or the health of the mother. The childs heart has already started to beat after the mother misses her period, after she has been pregnant for approximately 31 days.
Sounds decidedly inconvenient, doesn't it?EFFECTS OF ABORTION
According to www.abortionfacts.com, Abortion causes post traumatic stress syndrome, and post abortion syndrome, which causes depression, anxiety and makes the women vulnerable to suicide.
However, fetuses are not persons. Not every form of human life enjoys the right to live. It is only persons that do, and even then they do not have the right to live in violation of the bodily integrity of another person.Medical, biological and natural science has long since proved that babies are living humans from conception. Our founding fathers, in the charter of this republic spoke clearly, stating "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Right, but according to you, they chose abortion out of "convenience." How utterly absurd.Dr. Anne Speckhard, in a University of Minnesota study, researched "long-term manifestations of abortion" (5-10 years), and found that 81% of mothers reported preoccupation with their aborted child, 54% had nightmares, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt their abortion had taken a human life.
Again, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Fetuses are not persons and in that sense they are not human beings any more than a HeLa cell culture or a blood sample.MENTALLY ILL/BURDENSOME CHILDREN
Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being.
Says the person who claims abortions are done "out of convenience." Hah. My irony-meter is erupting right now.THE ILLEGAL ABORTION MYTH
Anyone who keeps up with the many pro-choice demonstrations in the United States cannot help but see on pro-choice placards and buttons a drawing of the infamous coat hanger. This symbol of the pro-choice movement represents the many women who were harmed or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on themselves (i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger") or went to unscrupulous physicians (or "back-alley butchers"). Hence, as the argument goes, if abortion is made illegal, then women will once again be harmed. Needless to say, this argument serves a powerful rhetorical purpose. Although the thought of finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.
How dare you trivialize the lives of those women. Have you no shame at all? "A mere 39"??? What, they don't really count because you don't know their names? The number is small enough that their lives aren't significant? Sheesh!According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.
It's amazing what sanitary conditions can do to a procedure when individuals are allowed to perform it in a public practice, isn't it?Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.
it is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." It seems that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers" eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our present day.
Okay. So what?THE POPULATION BOOM
The population of the world is growing, but population is not much of a problem in the United States. With a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 11 seconds, the U.S. population is growing at less than one percent per year. (www.census.gov)
Population growth or decline compares replacement of the current number of reproductive age individuals with the number of babies being born. By this measure, the United States is now in a sharp population decline.
Rhetoric is not an argument, remember? You said so yourself.HOW CAN A GIRL GIVE HER BABY UP FOR ADOPTION AND NEVER SEE HIM AGAIN?
Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby life. And because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" - or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?"
This one absolutely takes the cake. Where is there evidence that abortion has any type of causal relationship to child abuse? You assert nebulously that the rise in child abuse is due to an increased amount of stress and attacks on a woman's self-esteem, but where is that evidence? Certainly the number of automobiles produced in the united states increased across the years 1973, 1980, and 1987. Should we conclude that the these effects on women's self-esteem and the increased reporting of child abuse are the result of the sale of cars and trucks?ROE VS. WADE
1973, Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion throughout all nine months of the pregnancy. It stated that legal personage does not exist prenatally.
In 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, there were 167,000 cases of child abuse and neglect reported. Yet in 1980 there were 785,100 cases - an increase of 370% from 1973. Furthermore, in 1987, there were 2,025,200 cases reported, which represents an increase of 1112%. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting).
Rather than helping stop child abuse, legal abortion has actually contributed to its sharp rise due to the effects abortion has had on women's self-esteem and the ability to deal with stress.
Again, I would very much enjoy it if you would tell me the exact rule of logic that such a behavior violates.VIABILITY
Can we use viability as a way to tell whether a baby is a human or not? NO!!!
No! To do so is completely illogical.
I don't disagree, and I need not to maintain a pro-choice position.50 years ago viability was at 30 weeks. 25 years ago it had dropped to 25 weeks. Today we have a survivor at 20 weeks and several at 21 weeks.
But the babies havent changed. Mothers are making the same kind of babies they always did. But they are surviving earlier.
Is Viability a measure of how human a baby is? NO!
It is a measure of the sophistication of the external life support systems around the baby. It is not a measure of his humanness or of his right to live.
Baloney. It entirely dismisses the mother's right to bodily integrity. "Caring" indeed.THE BOTTOM LINE
If you are pregnant and can not keep the baby, adoption is the caring option.
Okay, before I answer your question, I want to be clear about what I'm saying, because there tends to be a lot of equivocation of the word "human." Specifically, I want to point out the difference between the adjective term "human," and the noun "a human." The adjective should not be confused with the noun, because there are forms of human life that we do *not* ordinarily see as deserving a "right to live." Blood cells, HeLa cell cultures, tumors and such are examples of human life-forms that do not enjoy that right. None of those examples are examples of a human.Spence06 said:May I humbly request for your defintion of a human life that has a right to life?
That is the question, isn't it? I don't really know precisely. Sentience and self-awareness are a good start, and those features depend on a sufficiently developed nervous system. As I said in an earlier post, I think metabolic autonomy is a biological feature that also defines persons. Before the central nervous system and cardio-vascular system develop, then it's obvious the embryo lacks personhood. I don't think that a first or early-second trimester fetus possesses enough of those qualities in stages of developement that could endow it with the capability; however I don't feel quite as confident making such claims about late-second or third trimester fetuses.What traits that human life would have? At what stage does this occur? And lastly, what is this based on?(Could you limit that to offering Scientific Studies or some official documents of factual information)
As I also said earlier in this thread, the anti-choice camp seeks to bestow upon a fetus greater rights than what persons ordinarily enjoy.Obviously the argument isn't the bodily intergrity of human life, but whether or not the unborn offspring of the parents are made equal in their rights so if I could better understand your position it would be greatly appericated.
Blood cells, HeLa cell cultures, tumors and such are examples of human life-forms that do not enjoy that right
a woman's body is basically enslaved by the fetus as she is forced to respirate and excrete for it; and the hormones it injects to her body disrupt her normal hormonal balance.
No person has the right to occupy the body of another against that person's consent.
Her right to choose to be free of that relationship in the interest of bodily integrity is inalienable.
. Her right to choose to be free of that relationship in the interest of bodily integrity is inalienable.
I don't really know precisely
You are a distinct individual with a unique identity of which you are constantly conscious. We call this identity your personhood. A human is a person,therefore.
I don't believe first and early-second trimester fetuses are persons. I thought I was clear about that.Spence06 said:Are you placing the unborn offspring into that catagory?
I did in no such way describe pregnancy as "unnatural." I don't think that the terms "natural" or "unnatural" have any significant meanings in relation to the issue of abortion.You make it sound to which the child's development inside the womb is unnatural? How can it be unnatural when the body does not reject the child being inside the womb but brings through development. It is a very welcomed in most cases inside the mother, however because of the disruptions of the normal flow of hormones, the mother does feel side affects, not a sign of rejection in average cases.
You are quite wrong about that. When one's own right to bodily integrity is violated, one has the right to use whatever reasonable force necessary in order to end the violation. If it can be determined that the minimum force necessary results in the death of the individual violater, then a person has a right to use it.No person has the right to stop an individual's life.
And lucky for her, she has the right to make that choice as well.Life is with consquences. When one makes a choice, that causes a reaction. Now I know some pregencies are not of their choice(rape, incest, ect), but in in a overwhelming amount of the time in those cases the mother would choose life not death of the child inside her because she can become the stronger willed person and overcome such a horrible act with such good.
First of all, I don't think it translates into killing another human being. I don't think that first trimester, or early-second trimester fetuses are human beings.How does that translate into killing another human being? Does that not deny the other human beings right?
I'm not certain where personhood begins, but that doesn't mean that I can't be highly confident about what stages exist before it.May I ask why you are so ready to deny the life of the unborn child if you are not even sure when such begins?
I don't think elective (or "on-demand") abortions are permissable in late-second and third trimester pregnancies. Such cases should be reserved for medical necessity only.If a doubt is raised in your mind, why would you support still the killing of such life in the womb? Would you support restrictions on abortions in certain cases and at certain time periods?
I said "sentience," not "consciousness." Sleeping persons are still sentient. Just wake them up, and you can see.Would those that are not conscious therefore, be not a human person anymore? Even to those that are, sleeping?
I'm not even going to answer this question.How much even directly after birth, does the newly born child have of personhood?
I don't believe first and early-second trimester fetuses are persons.
You are quite wrong about that. When one's own right to bodily integrity is violated, one has the right to use whatever reasonable force necessary in order to end the violation. If it can be determined that the minimum force necessary results in the death of the individual violater, then a person has a right to use it.
I'm not certain where personhood begins, but that doesn't mean that I can't be highly confident about what stages exist before it.
I think I've already been thorough enough wth my responses that if you'd read them as thoroghly as they were written, you wouldn't have to ask this question, and you'd already know my answer.AngelusSax said:Why not? Are not all the genes and chromosomes there? Is there no heartbeat within this time frame? Is there no formation of a brain at all? Is there no soul?
What's your point, aside from the obvious farce in your last sentence?A sperm and egg meet, conception occurs. The zygote (I think that's the term) attaches to the mother's uterus. If it were simply a growth at the early stage, there'd be no need for the sperm and egg to meet. There'd just be a growth, like a cancer, on the uterus, and one day, magically, it'd become a real boy (or girl).
I'm not saying that a fetus is acting maliciously, nor is the establishment of suitable mens rea at all necessary or relevant. The issue is the right of a person to control their own body and defend it against undesireable health consequences. I believe there is precedent for the lawful use of deadly force to stop the advances of an attacking somnabulist, so obviously mens rea is irrelevant.And with what malice is an unborn child acting?
Balderdash. That is complete nonsense. It is the right to live and to live freely form unwanted constraints on one's body.Our Declaration of Independence says we are all endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, and among these is the Right to Life. Abortion advocates say that no one has that right, that the right to life only applies when someone else decides it's okay for us to live.
Actually, if my mother had decided to keep her first pregnancy, I'd probably never have been born.It strikes me that abortion advocates are all alive, having not been aborted themselves.
Is this really the best you can do? An obviously misrepresentional parody? Where are the arguments?bviously, it's a camel first. Then a donkey. Then a chair. Then somehow, the human chromosomes all win and it becomes human. I thought that was obvious, and it happens right when someone else decides it's okay to happen.
Nobody is saying you have to.I wouldn't want ripped apart while still alive. So, in the spirit of "Do unto others", I could never perform, nor could I advocate in any way, abortions.
It is the right to live and to live freely form unwanted constraints on one's body.
So what? Did you sleep through your civics classes? The Declaration of Independence does not establish any law. That's what the Constitution was for, remember?AngelusSax said:That's not what it says.
There is certainly nothing convenient about an abortion, and I've never once claimed that a fetus is anything less than human. That is pure rhetoric and propaganda. It doesn't have quite the same effect as a rational argument does, but then if you had one of those you would've posted it.And killing a littler bugger that we conveniently dehumanize to support abortion means we're putting constraints on the body of the unborn.... constraints that kill it. Good going.
:æ: said:That is pure rhetoric and propaganda. It doesn't have quite the same effect as a rational argument does, but then if you had one of those you would've posted it.
:æ:
Whatever. Put your money where you mouth is, then, Mr. Smartypants, and demonstrate not only the equivocation (which doesn't exist) but also my intent (good luck). Anyone can claim a fallacy where there isn't one; however, not everyone can actually substantiate their claim. I don't think you fall into the latter category.ChiRho said:Actually, it is evil equivocation, and that committed intentionally on your part. What does your argument distill to?
Like your opinion about it makes any difference?Your final criterion is your reason. Not good enough.
wardpossy said:Abortion Is Wrong, Their is NO reason for it to ever be "OK" , Murder is Murder no matter What the Reason.
Jeff
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?