Abortion

[Chloe Williams]

There is no double standard to point out. They are two different situations.

The situation doesn't change anything. The unwanted 'fetus' is just as alive and deserves the same rights as the wanted 'fetus'.

 

[In A Perfect World]

The situation doesn't change anything. The unwanted 'fetus' is just as alive and deserves the same rights as the wanted 'fetus'.

Well that's debatable. I'm trying to stay neutral here. Let's not turn this into a debate - I just stepped in to shine light on this.

 

[]RiSeN[]

The fetus is hers. She can kill it if she wants to (may not be morally right though).

If someone kills her, the fetus goes with it. In essence, she was robbed of her child.

Im not sure if your red herring is intentional...but the fact that the baby is hers makes no difference in that the justification for abortion is that its ok for the mother choosing to kill the fetus because of a timetable supposing that the fetus is not human and therefor it isnt murder. But the killer is not given the same leaneant timetable, no matter what stage the childs is at the killer gets double murder.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Im not sure if your red herring is intentional...but the fact that the baby is hers makes no difference in that the justification for abortion is that its ok for the mother choosing to kill the fetus because of a timetable supposing that the fetus is not human and therefor it isnt murder. But the killer is not given the same leaneant timetable, no matter what stage the childs is at the killer gets double murder.

It's not a red herring. It's pertainent to our discussion. Whether or not abortion is wrong, the fetus is inside the mother. Would you consider a pacemaker not yours because it is in your body? Not the best analogy but...

 

[Seeking...]

So to recap, you are not aware of Gods name, you 'imagine' He has a plan, and you dont know of His personnality? It still sounds like your stepping upto the plate simply because your on a baseball field so therefor its logical that you should, yet havent bothered to learn about baseball.

I don't know what my beliefs about God have to do with this thread, but here is my recap...

I have always known there was a creator. I have studied different religions and I was at one point in time a Christian. I have found everything I have ever learned about God to be lacking and flavored by the views of men. So now, I simply have a belief that there is a Creator and I assume nothing about His nature, desires, or plans.

Please tell me why it is neccesary for you to make assumptions or insult those who you do not understand? How is that helpful to you?

 

[]RiSeN[]

Putting the adjective 'human' in front of the noun doesn't magically transform a fetus into a human being.

Putting the adjective 'human' in front of an embryo produced by two human beings and being carried by a female human being is totaly precise in it desciption. Your attempting to suggest that it is magically impossible to ask the question; "What kind of embryo is it?" Your attempt to dehumanize is pathetic. Another red herring.

A human corpse isn't a human being, is it?

Being; To exist in actuality; have life or reality.

A human corpse was and is still a human being as it, the corpse, exists in actuality and did at one point have life, it is a reality. Another red herring...

 

[]RiSeN[]

God has authority, but it is a moot point since it isn't really something He exercises. God doesn't require or request that He be "served". I don't believe God's true nature or intentions have been revealed to mankind through any religion - so an overall truth could exist, but isn't currently known.

But the God you believe in created no such law. The penalty for another causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder in the Bible. There isn't even a discussion of a woman ending her pregnancy herself - though the abortive properties of certain plants and whatnot have been known for many centuries. As a society, we don't recognize a non-viable baby as being a separate entity from the mother and she has the right to do with her body what she will. It is unlikely that an abortion will ever be seen as murder by the majority in a democracy.

God is God - He is the creator of everything and if He has another name for Himself, I don't know it. I believe in God because everything in nature tells me He exists and I have had personal experience with Him moving in my life. I don't know that God has a purpose - if He does, I don't know it. For me, belief in God is logical - it isn't about peace of mind, He isn't sitting around waiting to save me or anyone else. There have been times I have been sure He was working in my life and there have been equally turbulent times when I did not. I imagine God serves His own purpose, and again, I don't know what that is.

Im asking you these questions not because im trying to insult you but simply because you've made many statements, alot of them erroneous, about the Will, personality, qualities, laws and plans of God while at the same time admitting that you are not informed as to any knowing of them. Its just not really logical.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Putting the adjective 'human' in front of an embryo produced by two human beings and being carried by a female human being is totaly precise in it desciption. Your attempting to suggest that it is magically impossible to ask the question; "What kind of embryo is it?" Your attempt to dehumanize is pathetic. Another red herring.



Being; To exist in actuality; have life or reality.

A human corpse was and is still a human being as it, the corpse, exists in actuality and did at one point have life, it is a reality. Another red herring...

lol, a human corpse is a human being? Better stop burying them...imagine, burying a human being!

 

[peepnklown]

If abortion is good enough for the animal kingdom it is good enough for humanity.

 

[]RiSeN[]

If abortion is good enough for the animal kingdom it is good enough for humanity.

Really? Sinse living in water is good enough for fish we should all go live underwater? Or maybe you should follow lemmings then? If jumping off cliffs to there deaths is good enough for them, then its good enough for you. Or maybe we should all accept cannibalism, sinse eating ones young is practiced in the animal kingdom? Lions eat the wild buffalo while they are still alive, should we start eating cows while they are still alive because its a good idea to lions? What an absurd argument.

 

[spanner365]

Please start a new thread.

I am just wondering where you are coming from. If you are not in favor of stem cell research or are undecided, please explain why. If you are in favor of stem cell research than what is it about abortion that makes it different?

 

[Chloe Williams]

Edit: ooops! nevermind!

 

[maha]

Really? Sinse living in water is good enough for fish we should all go live underwater? Or maybe you should follow lemmings then? If jumping off cliffs to there deaths is good enough for them, then its good enough for you. Or maybe we should all accept cannibalism, sinse eating ones young is practiced in the animal kingdom? Lions eat the wild buffalo while they are still alive, should we start eating cows while they are still alive because its a good idea to lions? What an absurd argument.

I don't think that he meant it in so literally. He's not saying that we should do EVERYTHING that animals do, but that we should be able to commit infanticide. The rationale is that if other animals do it, then why can't human animals do it? It's a good point. It's a natural, so why deny it.

 

[]RiSeN[]

I don't think that he meant it in so literally. He's not saying that we should do EVERYTHING that animals do, but that we should be able to commit infanticide. The rationale is that if other animals do it, then why can't human animals do it? It's a good point. It's a natural, so why deny it.

Cancer is a natural occurance, but i dont hear anyone fighting for the right to get cancer. I dont hear anyone useing the excuse that because cancer is natural, it is advantageous for us to have and that the option of us being able to have it is also advantageous, nor that because the option of cancer exists that we should all get cancer.

 

[maha]

Cancer is a natural occurance, but i dont hear anyone fighting for the right to get cancer. I dont hear anyone useing the excuse that because cancer is natural, it is advantageous for us to have and that the option of us being able to have it is also advantageous, nor that because the option of cancer exists that we should all get cancer.

You're using the same flawed rationale and taking it to an extreme yet again. We are not talking about ALL things natural or ALL things that animals do--just infanticide. Since we are focused in on this one issue (infanticide) then we can draw comparisons to it...such as the fact that other animals use the technique in natural settings. Anyone can create a tangent that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but that is rather counter-productive. We are only talking about infanticide (abortion), nothing else.

 

[Seeking...]

Im asking you these questions not because im trying to insult you but simply because you've made many statements, alot of them erroneous, about the Will, personality, qualities, laws and plans of God while at the same time admitting that you are not informed as to any knowing of them. Its just not really logical.

Reread the statements, I'm pretty clear when I am discussing what I believe to be true about God and when I am discussing what someone else believes about God. If I am arguing with a Christian - I use the Bible as a basis because it is something they believe in - doesn't make any difference that I don't share their beliefs.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Reread the statements, I'm pretty clear when I am discussing what I believe to be true about God and when I am discussing what someone else believes about God. If I am arguing with a Christian - I use the Bible as a basis because it is something they believe in - doesn't make any difference that I don't share their beliefs.

It makes a difference if your useing erroneous Christian beliefs and erroneous statements as to what the bible contains, to prove your points.

 

[Chloe Williams]

The rationale is that if other animals do it, then why can't human animals do it? It's a good point. It's a natural, so why deny it.

Human animals can't (or shouldn't) do it because it is WRONG. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong but humans do. Just because animals are doing it doesn't make it right or natural. Besides, when have we ever let animals set the standard for the way we live our lives?

 

[In A Perfect World]

Human animals can't (or shouldn't) do it because it is WRONG. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong but humans do. Just because animals are doing it doesn't make it right or natural.

Correction - you think it's wrong. Not everyone does. Hence why it's up for debate. Most people agree that murder is wrong, but that also does not make it so. People disagree on everything.

 

[maha]

Human animals can't (or shouldn't) do it because it is WRONG. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong but humans do. Just because animals are doing it doesn't make it right or natural. Besides, when have we ever let animals set the standard for the way we live our lives?

So, do animals do things that are "wrong" despite not knowing the difference between right and wrong? There are some important implications to your answer.