Abortion, right or wrong?

[Ave Maria]

I voted the first one. I don't like abortion but I see it as a necessary evil in a sense. Personally, I see nothing wrong with abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy. After that, I don't really care if they regulate it or not. In fact, some regulation would probably be a good thing.

 

[AliveInChrist]

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 woman’s pregnancy. They use viability as a means of telling when a baby becomes human. This is incredibly illogical. 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 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 mother’s health. That means 93% of abortions are done out of convenience! 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, 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 woman’s 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. 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.

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)

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.”


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.

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 child’s heart has already started to beat after the mother misses her period, after she has been pregnant for approximately 31 days.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.



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.

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?"

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.

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. 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 haven’t 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.

THE BOTTOM LINE
If you are pregnant and can not keep the baby, adoption is the caring option.

 

[:æ:]

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 woman’s pregnancy. They use viability as a means of telling when a baby becomes human.

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.

This is incredibly illogical.

Is that so? Then surely you can tell us all which rule of logic it violates.

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!

1.) What does marriage have anything to do with conception, pregnancy or abortion?

2.) Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Analagously, an invitation of a person into your home does not imply an invitation to remain once his/her presence is unwanted, nor does imply an invitation to freely remove or consume anything on the premises.

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 mother’s health. That means 93% of abortions are done out of convenience!

If you think having an abortion is convenient, then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

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,

Says you, and you are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, however.

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 woman’s 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.

Utterly ridiculous, as explained above. Consent to sex is not consent to an unwanted pregnancy.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.”

He also said to turn the other cheek. Which one is true?

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.

Pathetic well-poisoning.

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 child’s heart has already started to beat after the mother misses her period, after she has been pregnant for approximately 31 days.

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?

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.

Sounds decidedly inconvenient, doesn't it?

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.”

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.

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.

Right, but according to you, they chose abortion out of "convenience." How utterly absurd.

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.

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.

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.

Says the person who claims abortions are done "out of convenience." Hah. My irony-meter is erupting right now.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

Okay. So what?

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?"

Rhetoric is not an argument, remember? You said so yourself.

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.

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?

Bottom line: correlation is not causation.

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.

Again, I would very much enjoy it if you would tell me the exact rule of logic that such a behavior violates.

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 haven’t 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.

I don't disagree, and I need not to maintain a pro-choice position.

THE BOTTOM LINE
If you are pregnant and can not keep the baby, adoption is the caring option.

Baloney. It entirely dismisses the mother's right to bodily integrity. "Caring" indeed.

:æ:

 

[Spence06]

Hello :æ:,

May I humbly request for your defintion of a human life that has a right to life? 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)

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.

This just for my own personal knowledge and thank you for your time!

-Neil

 

[:æ:]

May I humbly request for your defintion of a human life that has a right to life?

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.

A human is what I am. You are a human. 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.

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)

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.

But this is really a red herring. No person has the right to occupy the body of another against that person's consent. While pregnant, 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. Her right to choose to be free of that relationship in the interest of bodily integrity is inalienable.

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.

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.

 

[Spence06]

Hey, Thank you for the answers and if you permit, I will follow with a few more.

Blood cells, HeLa cell cultures, tumors and such are examples of human life-forms that do not enjoy that right

Are you placing the unborn offspring into that catagory?

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.

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.

No person has the right to occupy the body of another against that person's consent.

No person has the right to stop an individual's life.

Her right to choose to be free of that relationship in the interest of bodily integrity is inalienable.

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.

. Her right to choose to be free of that relationship in the interest of bodily integrity is inalienable.

How does that translate into killing another human being? Does that not deny the other human beings right?

I don't really know precisely

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? 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?

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.

Would those that are not conscious therefore, be not a human person anymore? Even to those that are, sleeping? How much even directly after birth, does the newly born child have of personhood?

Thank you, and I am sorry if it doesn't seem organized. I stopped in the middle to eat dinner and now just coming back.

-Neil

 

[:æ:]

Are you placing the unborn offspring into that catagory?

I don't believe first and early-second trimester fetuses are persons. I thought I was clear about that.

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.

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.

No person has the right to stop an individual's life.

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.

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.

And lucky for her, she has the right to make that choice as well.

How does that translate into killing another human being? Does that not deny the other human beings right?

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.

Second, removal of the fetus is the minimum force necessary to end the violation of the mother's right to bodily integrity.

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'm not certain where personhood begins, but that doesn't mean that I can't be highly confident about what stages exist before it.

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 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.

Would those that are not conscious therefore, be not a human person anymore? Even to those that are, sleeping?

I said "sentience," not "consciousness." Sleeping persons are still sentient. Just wake them up, and you can see.

How much even directly after birth, does the newly born child have of personhood?

I'm not even going to answer this question.

:æ:

 

[AngelusSax]

I don't believe first and early-second trimester fetuses are persons.

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?

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).

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.

And with what malice is an unborn child acting? I agree that if we're being attacked, we have a right to defense. But really, in the case of abortion, at least 9 out of 10 times, the issue isn't health of the mother or anything of the like. It's simply "I don't want this now," and then an abortion is scheduled and performed.

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.

It strikes me that abortion advocates are all alive, having not been aborted themselves.

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.

Obviously, 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.

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.

 

[:æ:]

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?

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.

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).

What's your point, aside from the obvious farce in your last sentence?

And with what malice is an unborn child acting?

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.

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.

Balderdash. That is complete nonsense. It is the right to live and to live freely form unwanted constraints on one's body.

It strikes me that abortion advocates are all alive, having not been aborted themselves.

Actually, if my mother had decided to keep her first pregnancy, I'd probably never have been born.

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.

Is this really the best you can do? An obviously misrepresentional parody? Where are the arguments?

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.

Nobody is saying you have to.

:æ:

 

[AngelusSax]

It is the right to live and to live freely form unwanted constraints on one's body.

That's not what it says. And killing a little baby 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:]

That's not what it says.

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?

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.

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.

:æ:

 

[ChiRho]

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:

Actually, it is evil equivocation, and that committed intentionally on your part. What does your argument distill to?

Your final criterion is your reason. Not good enough.


Solus Christus,

ChiRho

 

[:æ:]

Actually, it is evil equivocation, and that committed intentionally on your part. What does your argument distill to?

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.

Your final criterion is your reason. Not good enough.

Like your opinion about it makes any difference?

:æ:

 

[Bah-Bah Black Sheep]

I don't particularly see anything wrong with first-trimester abortions, and it's nobodies place, not the government nor the church, to tell who and who can't get them.

Second trimester abortions are all right with me, so long as it's done ASAP.

I believe third trimester abortions are immoral, but should still be a viable option in case of incest ir rape, or other sex crimes. Or if the mother or father suddenly lose all their positions, etc.

 

[Bah-Bah Black Sheep]

****Double Post, ignore****

 

[wardpossy]

Abortion Is Wrong, Their is NO reason for it to ever be "OK" , Murder is Murder no matter What the Reason.

Jeff

 

[raphael_aa]

Abortion Is Wrong, Their is NO reason for it to ever be "OK" , Murder is Murder no matter What the Reason.

Jeff

What about the death penalty? What about killing in war time? What about assassinating Hitler? etc etc

 

[AngelusSax]

Murder is pre-meditated. It is done out of cold-heartnedness usually. The killing done in war is done because it's either shoot or be shot. There's no malice there, and the soldier doesn't pre-determine that he or she will indeed kill a particluar nother individual.

The death penalty is not murder. If we are to take Romans 13:1-4 to heart, then we must believe that the government is the agent of God's wrath to execute punishment to the wrongdoer.

Much as this is gonna be not-liked, it would have been wrong to just assassinate Hitler. However, since he acted aggresively, nations went to war against him in a defensive maneuver, and later Hitler took his own life.

Killing is the ending of a life.

Murder is the ending of a life of one who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is thus unlawful.

See the distinction?

 

[Amurphycat]

I am anti- abortion(I am also very pro-womens rights)

I hope that we find a way to take it away as an option.

Now lets look at why it is an option.

Men, often leave a girl or women as soon as she is pregnuant. When she tells the man, his splits. There is an obvious reason why women, feel that they should have the right. If WE(i am a man), can be more responsible. I think that abortion, shouldn't need to happen in the first place.

Rape and incest do occur. What happens when the women, has to live with the baby, of the man, that overpowered her and Raped her(who she coincidentally doesn't like). To an extent, it seems moral to have it as a option "barely used".

What I think we need to do better, is teach people how to overcome abortion before it occurs. Don't let them get a place where abortion is an option. Because it shouldn't be, it is morally wrong. I also don't think that women want abortion for "sexual freedom", that is a misconstrewed truth.

I don't think that people who disagree with it should ever pay taxes on it. That would be wrong.

 

[DarkGalaxy]

I believe abortion is wrong in every case, except to save the mother's life, or if a minor child is raped and a pregnancy results. The minor is more important in a case such as that. Abortion for convenience is clearly wrong.