What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

[SaraJarvis]

Poor babies

Oh, that's just pedantic. Again, you're ignoring everything else. My point is; illegalise abortions, it'll still happen. But with bad consequences for the fetus and mother.

 

[mathetes123]

Oh, that's just pedantic. Again, you're ignoring everything else. My point is; illegalise abortions, it'll still happen. But with bad consequences for the fetus and mother.

Either it is right or it is wrong. You can't have it both ways. Can you say with a straight face that it is not wrong to terminate the life of an unborn baby?

 

[SaraJarvis]

How am I trying to have it both ways? That’s an absurd statement. It is right. And yes, with a straight face, I can say that. It is not a child; it is a fetus. Do some scientific research.

 

[mathetes123]

Oh, that's just pedantic. Again, you're ignoring everything else. My point is; illegalise abortions, it'll still happen. But with bad consequences for the fetus and mother.

They made murder illegal. People still do it with bad consequences because the possibility of being punished for their crimes makes the murderer more dangerous. Don't you see how that line of reasoning could be used to justify just about anything?

 

[SaraJarvis]

How can you even compare the two things? Murder is done out of either cold blood, or some form of psychotic rage. An abortion is nothing of the sort. Again, I believe that some research is necessary, on your part. Instead of looking at the anti-abortion sites; have a look at a scientific article on abortion. It is not murder; the fetus can't even think, doesn't have eyes, fingers, anything. It cannot survive without it's mother's womb. It is not a human being.

 

[mathetes123]

How can you even compare the two things? Murder is done out of either cold blood, or some form of psychotic rage. An abortion is nothing of the sort. Again, I believe that some research is necessary, on your part. Instead of looking at the anti-abortion sites; have a look at a scientific article on abortion. It is not murder; the fetus can't even think, doesn't have eyes, fingers, anything. It cannot survive without it's mother's womb. It is not a human being.

Can the baby one minute out of the womb survive on its own? Is it fully developed? No one would question that it is a human being.

 

[SaraJarvis]

Obviously. It is out of the womb. Inside the womb, it isn't even developed enough to breathe, blink, etc. It has potential to become a human being; it is developing into one, but it is not dully formed - hence, it is NOT a baby. Not at the point of abortion. It is a fetus. It could not exist outside its mother's womb. Again; have you had a look at any scientific articles? They might help you understand this concept.

 

[lismore]

Abortion makes many people sad. Personally speaking I think even abortion of an animal like a sheep would be wrong.

Life is sacred, an amazing gift.

Some people maybe hold an opposite opinion, this is mine.

 

[SaraJarvis]

You are entitled to your opinion, my dear. So am I. Unfortunately, your opinion cannot override the law. Nor should it; why should atheists follow a Christian law?

As a further point, I would like to note; I am not bitter towards God, as someone stated earlier. How can I feel bitterness towards something I don’t believe in?

 

[mathetes123]

Obviously. It is out of the womb. Inside the womb, it isn't even developed enough to breathe, blink, etc. It has potential to become a human being; it is developing into one, but it is not dully formed - hence, it is NOT a baby. Not at the point of abortion. It is a fetus. It could not exist outside its mother's womb. Again; have you had a look at any scientific articles? They might help you understand this concept.

Inside the womb or outside the womb is just geography and does not form the basis for distinctions for human or not human. If development is the standard for determining the value of a person, then would you support infanticide, because an infant is not fully formed or capable of surviving on its own? In fact, humans are not fully developed until they are in their 20's. Should a parent be able to legally kill their children until they reach the age of 21?

 

[SaraJarvis]

Inside the womb or outside the womb is just geography and does not form the basis for distinctions for human or not human. If development is the standard for determining the value of a person, then would you support infanticide, because an infant is not fully formed or capable of surviving on its own? In fact, humans are not fully developed until they are in their 20's. Should a parent be able to legally kill their children until they reach the age of 21?

That’s just silly. An infant not fully developed, but it is a human. It can breathe, blink, see, feel, smell. A fetus can do none of these things. Would you call a seed a flower? No. You eat eggs, right? Do they taste like chicken? Nope. Because they’re not. They’re undeveloped. They are eggs.

 

[mathetes123]

That’s just silly. An infant not fully developed, but it is a human. It can breathe, blink, see, feel, smell. A fetus can do none of these things. Would you call a seed a flower? No. You eat eggs, right? Do they taste like chicken? Nope. Because they’re not. They’re undeveloped. They are eggs.

Your the one placing value on a life based on its development. A newborn baby can't talk. It can't feed itself. It can't walk. It can't get a job. Heck, it can't even change its diaper. Why give it any more value than a less developed baby in the womb?

Do you realize ther have been premature babies born weighing less than 2 lbs that have survived outside the womb. Are ftheir lives of any less value?

 

[acropolis]

Do a google search on partial birth abortion. It is a barbaric procedure.

Partial-births are very rarely performed even when legal and basically only in order to save the life of the mother. Women who choose to abort do so overwhelmingly early in pregnancy:

Women have a de facto right not to carry to term. If they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy they can simply starve themselves and force a miscarriage. The choice then is between forcing pregnant women to take the risky route of handling their own pregnancy that way, or allowing them a safe way to handle it. The only ethical choice is to provide and safe way for pregnant women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

The only real way to reduce the number of fetuses not carried to term is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place which involves providing good sex education and easy access to birth control methods. Strangely enough, most people who decry abortion don't want either of these things.

 

[SaraJarvis]

Your the one placing value on a life based on its development. A newborn baby can't talk. It can't feed itself. It can't walk. It can't get a job. Heck, it can't even change its diaper. Why give it any more value than a less developed baby in the womb?

Do you realize ther have been premature babies born weighing less than 2 lbs that have survived outside the womb. Are ftheir lives of any less value?

Yes, of course I realise that there are premature babies. But we’re not talking 7 month abortions, here. We’re talking up to what, 3 months? They don’t even look like babies! It is not, by any means, a child. Have you had a look at any scientific research, yet? I find it amusing that I can search through anti-abortion sites for their opinion, but you seem too self-righteous to have a look at a scientific article to see my opinion.

 

[mathetes123]

Yes, of course I realise that there are premature babies. But we’re not talking 7 month abortions, here. We’re talking up to what, 3 months? They don’t even look like babies! It is not, by any means, a child. Have you had a look at any scientific research, yet? I find it amusing that I can search through anti-abortion sites for their opinion, but you seem too self-righteous to have a look at a scientific article to see my opinion.

So you believe late term abortions are wrong, so it is not just a matter of inside the womb or outside? At what point does the unborn cease from being expendable and what is the transcendent, authoritative, absolute
moral standard by which you make that distinction?

 

[SaraJarvis]

So you believe late term abortions are wrong, so it is not just a matter of inside the womb or outside? At what point does the unborn cease from being expendable and what is the transcendent, authoritative, absolute
moral standard by which you make that distinction?

As far as I can remember, the law states up to 3 months is humane. I think it may be a little more, so don’t quote me on that number. Anyway; late term abortion is a rarity in itself. It is only usually conducted if there is a problem with the mother or the pregnancy. Perhaps the child is to be born with severe disabilities, etc. or the mother’s life is in danger. I’m not against them, no; there are valid reasons. It doesn’t usually happen anyway, so it’s hardly a major issue. Most pregnancies are aborted within the three month period. I was two and a half months gone when I got mine. I’d been waiting for three weeks, because the clinic had been fully booked. Early abortions are conducted by a pill, usually – these “barbaric” abortions you speak of, are the later ones.
You still haven’t answered any of my questions. Why is this?

 

[mathetes123]

As far as I can remember, the law states up to 3 months is humane. I think it may be a little more, so don’t quote me on that number. Anyway; late term abortion is a rarity in itself. It is only usually conducted if there is a problem with the mother or the pregnancy. Perhaps the child is to be born with severe disabilities, etc. or the mother’s life is in danger. I’m not against them, no; there are valid reasons. It doesn’t usually happen anyway, so it’s hardly a major issue. Most pregnancies are aborted within the three month period. I was two and a half months gone when I got mine. I’d been waiting for three weeks, because the clinic had been fully booked. Early abortions are conducted by a pill, usually – these “barbaric” abortions you speak of, are the later ones.
You still haven’t answered any of my questions. Why is this?

So are you saying the law is the transcendent, authoritative, absolute moral authority? What if the supreme court reversed roe v wade tomorrow and made abortion illegal? Would you still say law is the transcendent, authoritative, absolute moral authority? In a world without a god can there be a transcendent, authoritative, absolute moral authority?

What questions are you referring to that you are suggesting I am avoiding?

 

[SaraJarvis]

So are you saying the law is the transcendent, authoritative, absolute moral authority? What if the supreme court reversed roe v wade tomorrow and made abortion illegal? Would you still say law is the transcendent, authoritative, absolute moral authority? In a world without a god can there be a transcendent, authoritative, absolute moral authority?

What questions are you referring to that you are suggesting I am avoiding?

Absolutely not. I don’t believe in an absolute moral authority. Everyone has their own morals. You can’t force morals upon anyone; it just won’t work. The law works as it is, simply because it means those who don’t want abortions don’t have to have them, and those who do, can. If it were to change, then it would cut off the section of people who do want abortions. A woman has the freedom to do whatever she will with her own body. Whether it is to get pregnant, to abort, to remain celibate, to be promiscuous; it is her body. Not her father’s, not her brother’s, not her boyfriend’s, and not her husband’s. Hers. If the law were to change, there would be an uproar, and many dangerous backstreet abortions.

Have a read back; I’ve asked a few. Most recent; have you had a look at any scientific research on abortion?

 

[mathetes123]

Absolutely not. I don’t believe in an absolute moral authority. Everyone has their own morals. You can’t force morals upon anyone; it just won’t work. The law works as it is, simply because it means those who don’t want abortions don’t have to have them, and those who do, can. If it were to change, then it would cut off the section of people who do want abortions. A woman has the freedom to do whatever she will with her own body. Whether it is to get pregnant, to abort, to remain celibate, to be promiscuous; it is her body. Not her father’s, not her brother’s, not her boyfriend’s, and not her husband’s. Hers. If the law were to change, there would be an uproar, and many dangerous backstreet abortions.

Have a read back; I’ve asked a few. Most recent; have you had a look at any scientific research on abortion?

Whose body is the unborn baby? Who speaks for that baby's body? Is it fair that people should be making decisions to terminate that child's life simply because that child cannot speak up for itself?

As for not recognizing any moral authority, you therefore have no basis for making a moral argument as though you recognized there is a transcendent moral standard by which we should agree on the meaning of what is moral.

As for scientific evidence, science will tell you the the unborn have the same genetic makeup from conception to adulthood, making them fully human just not fully developed, just as a baby outside the womb and in fact a child up to their early 20s is not fully developed.

 

[SaraJarvis]

Whose body is the unborn baby? Who speaks for that baby's body? Is it fair that people should be making decisions to terminate that child's life simply because that child cannot speak up for itself?

As for scientific evidence, science will tell you the the unborn have the same genetic makeup from conception to adulthood, making them fully human just not fully developed, just as a baby outside the womb and in fact a child up to their early 20s is not fully developed.

As I have said before; it is not yet fully a child. It is a fetus. If you had read some detailed scientific research on abortion (not human biology), then you would realise this. A fetus does not even have a body. It is nothing but a fertalised egg. Is sperm human? No. It is unfertalised, but by your standards, considering that it is a part of the makeup of human biology, then wasting that through masturbation would disgraceful, too. Anyway, I digress. A woman has the right to rid her womb of a fertalised egg. It is not yet a child. Please, have a look at some proper scientific research.