Why Abortion should never be Outlawed!! (an honest, personal eperience) TRUTH!!!!

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Although you couldn't ask a lot of foetuses if they wanted to be aborted, because before the second trimester, they have the nervous system of a turnip.


Oh you love to push buttons dont you.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you realise that ethics are subjective? Or do you fail to recognise anyone else's views other than your own?

Seriously... :sigh:

Well if someone were to say, for instance, that all rugby players have the intelligence of a turnip, there are some that just might take exception.
 
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟18,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well if someone were to say, for instance, that all rugby players have the intelligence of a turnip, there are some that just might take exception.

No one is stopping you from taking exception, it would just be better for discussions if you were to recognise that your morality is not the only morality.
 
Upvote 0

mpok1519

Veteran
Jul 8, 2007
11,508
347
✟28,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're right. Might as well legalize all murder since it won't all be enforceable. Might as well let people steal without fear of being busted since we are not able to stop all thieves. Might as well tear down the speed limits since they will never catch all the speeders...on and on and on and on.... Whatever. Of course laws cut down on illegal activity. That's the whole premise behind having a justice system, is because we believe we can cut donw on illegal activities by having laws and law enforcers in place to stop those caught in illegal activities.


In Christ, GB

But laws against murder are enforceable. Same with traffic laws.

Your logical fallacies are piling up. Strawmen do very bad in tinder-dry conditions.
 
Upvote 0

ajunkyarddog

Newbie
Apr 17, 2011
136
12
Florida
✟15,349.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I with prolifers would stop using the "abortion is murder" fallacy.

Because then you have already judged everyone who has had an abortion as murderers.

And you're taught not to judge.

Whats the definition of hypocrisy again?

So, do you not consider Jeffrey Dahmer to be a murderer? Is that judging?
 
Upvote 0

mpok1519

Veteran
Jul 8, 2007
11,508
347
✟28,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
that would be judging if you considered dahmer a murderer. But he has already been judged, in the court of law, and sentenced accordingly. My opinions are not necessary, or desired.


Now why are you comparing a woman who aborted a fetus with zero chance to live anything resembling a healthy normal happy life to be on the same playing field as Dahmer?
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No one is stopping you from taking exception, it would just be better for discussions if you were to recognise that your morality is not the only morality.


Yes and some people think rape is ok too. I mean everyone has a different morality......right?
 
Upvote 0

Ar Cosc

I only exist on the internet
Jul 12, 2010
2,615
127
36
Scotland
✟3,511.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So doing a frontal lobotomy on someone would preclude them from being a human and therefore making their murder acceptable? Think about your reasoning. All a murderer would have to do is to cut off oxygen to the brain long enough to make a person brain dead, that would be like aggrevated assault. Then they could kill them after they were brain dead and say it wasn't murder because there was no brain activity. Thus, they would not be guilty of murder, just assault. They do a few years and are out and about to do it again.
As Beechwell has said, a frontal lobotomy doesn't turn someone into a complete nonresponsive vegetable. And I think deliberately causing someone to become completely brain dead is pretty much as bad as murder.

What you fail to recognize is that an eight week old fetus will become a nine week old, then a ten week old, and eventually an adult. You are comparing someone who is permanently locked into a condition to someone who will increase their body weight and size and brain by millions of times by the time they travel though the birth canal.
And a sperm and an egg can become a newly-fertilized foetus, which can become a two week-old foetus, which can... The potential to become a person doesn't make something a person yet. You think a foetus becomes a person at the moment of conception, when it is just a cell. I say it becomes a person when those neurons start firing some time into the second trimester. Then, after the foetus can start to think to some degree, and feel pain, I believe it is immoral to terminate the pregnancy, the degree of immorality increasing the more advanced those brain functions become.

Come to America sometime and destroy a bald eagle's egg. You will get fined and jailed. Though you can come to this same country, get a gal pregnant and take her down to a local abortion clinic, and you will get gov't assistance to kill hers and your offspring. Where did we go so horribly astray?
Em... Go to anywhere, and destroy someone else's foetus without their permission will land you in jail. And it is illegal to destroy a bald eagle's egg not because it is considered immoral to destroy fertilized eggs, but because bald eagles were critically endangered



So abortion = pulling up a turnip, to you. You fail to recognize this is the ethics sub-forum? Or you merely fail to have any?

Perhaps my ethics are different to yours. That doesn't mean they are any better or worse.

Well if someone were to say, for instance, that all rugby players have the intelligence of a turnip, there are some that just might take exception.

Only a foetus in the first trimester with no nervous system actually does have the intelligence of a vegetable, i.e. none. It's not an insult, it's a fact that is germane to the discussion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No one is stopping you from taking exception, it would just be better for discussions if you were to recognise that your morality is not the only morality.

Sorry, but there is NO morality that will allow someone to seriously think your son is the equivalent of a turnip.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Only a foetus in the first trimester with no nervous system actually does have the intelligence of a vegetable, i.e. none. It's not an insult, it's a fact that is germane to the discussion.

So you limit your comment to the first trimester because after that abortion is illegal?

Who was the President that was defending live birth "abortions?"
 
Upvote 0

FaithLikeARock

Let the human mind loose.
Nov 19, 2007
2,802
287
California
✟4,662.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
< staff edit >
< staff edit > < staff edit > I'll address one inconsistency in your line of questions. You asked if your sister should have been forced to risk her life in order to have her baby. Nowhere did you ever state that the doctors told her that her life was in jeopardy if she carried to term; only that the baby would have little chance of survival to term and no chance of any long-term survival outside of the womb. Just because the baby is in danger doesn't mean the mother's life is at risk, just as there are cases in which the mother's life is in danger when there is nothing wrong with the baby.

And these stories aren't even conducive to the abortion debate. You would have presented a much better case if your story was about a sister who was going to college, had a brief fling with a young man and he dumped her when she found out she was pregnant. So, she decides to have an abortion, because it's simply not a good time for her to have a kid. Or she can't afford it. Or she simply doesn't want the hassle of it at that point in her life.

In fact, according to an AGI survey among post-abortive women only 6% cited medical reasons (mother and/or baby) as the reason for termination. 1% was for rape or incest. The remaining 93% cited reasons such as, "partner or parents convinced me" and "not ready for the responsibility". In fact, a staggering 42% of women cited not ready for the responsibility or can't afford a child as the reason for termination. 12% said they got pregnant during a period of relationship problems and didn't want to be a single parent, if a break-up/divorce were a possibility. 16% of women surveyed said they were concerned about how a child would alter their lifestyle. And this wasn't some crazy, biased anti-abortion group conducted survey. This was the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Most pro-life individuals recognize that a small percentage a women face dire medical circumstances during the course of their pregnancy and, occasionally, are faced with a difficult decision. I don't know of many pro-life people who would tell a woman with a tubal pregnancy that she should simply bleed to death for an embryo that will never develop outside of the fallopian tube or a woman with a stillborn baby inside of her that it should just stay in her uterus and cause her womb to become infected. These women are the women who fall into the extremely rare 6% category of women who really wanted to have their babies, but medical complications prohibited that. Nobody blames these women or thinks they should be ashamed of themselves or feel badly about their decision.

We're talking about the 93% who casually decide a baby would just be too much of a hassle or it would cramp their lifestyle or because they have a crappy boyfriend who threatens to break up with them if they don't terminate, so they pick keeping their boyfriend over having the baby. That's treating human life with so little compassion, so little care, so little thought. Women who wanted their children, but couldn't carry to term for medical reasons, understand the gravity of having human life inside your body and having it ripped away in a single moment. The trauma of leaving a hospital with empty arms and an empty womb. There's nothing casual about that.

Beg pardon? It sounds to me like 16% was just a casual "Nah I don't want it". Of that 93%, the majority CAN'T raise a child - they don't have the financial or emotional security. Before you shout "BUT ADOPTION!" the adoption process in this country is so under funded and offers so little report that I would almost rather abort my child than stick them in a situation where most likely they will never have a stable home and most likely grow up to live on the streets.

I've heard of ridiculous reasons to get an abortion (the most shallow of which was "I don't want to be fat for 9 months" - no joke) but people tend to write any prospective mother who gets an abortion for non-medical reasons as a horrible person who killed her baby - not taking into account that she was a mother who worked full time and still barely made enough to support herself. Or that her boyfriend was abusive and she didn't want to bring a child into that situation.

And also, I say again, as I always do, I know many many people who are pro-life. But I know very FEW people who adopt. And most of the people I know who have adopted or plan to adopt aren't pro-life at all - they're very pro-choice. Strangely, there's a lot more people on the INTERNET who claim to adopt (emphasis on claim, because if every pro-life person on the Internet has adopted then why are there still children sitting in foster care?)

Pro-lifers just want to judge and criminalize others. But they take absolutely NO actions to actually improve matters. They think they can just make it illegal and that's the end. Why? Because that's easy. That doesn't effect them - they can effectively ignore the mothers dying from back alley abortions, the babies left on the curb, the expanding foster care system, the increasing number of children without families - and still think they did a good job because hey, abortion is illegal.

If every pro-life person sucked up their Christian pride to want to procreate and ADOPTED, then we wouldn't need abortion. But no. Instead, the only interest they seem to take in adoption is ensuring as few couples as possible can even adopt a child. The requirements are so stringent, both financially and in regards to the couple, and yet the weirdest sickos still get through and make those kids suffer. Meanwhile couples who are lower middle class (still enough to support a child), gay couples of course, stand idly by, unable to help a child. Because pro-lifers are too selfish to help these kids themselves, and yet too foolish and naive to open up the system to honest families can adopt these kids while they're off having their own into the double digits. It's disgusting.

In my opinion, if a family wants to have more than one kid, then they should look into adoption. They can have a genetic child, but they can help one that needs a family too. The days of "passing on your seed" are long gone - legacies are started through nurturing.

And in the meantime, all those pro-lifers in Congress (state and federal) that want to keep cutting medical care - one of the few resources these women have when they can't afford to be pregnant - can take responsibility for thousands of abortions that they will cause with the amount of women who won't be able to get medical care to pay for the hospital bills associated with pregnancy and child birth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟18,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sorry, but there is NO morality that will allow someone to seriously think your son is the equivalent of a turnip.

Of course there is. There's an ethical code for everything.

I'd say an early stage foetus is closer to a jellyfish though. It's got some organs, and some form of basic nervous system, but no mind, no personality, no personhood.
 
Upvote 0

FaithLikeARock

Let the human mind loose.
Nov 19, 2007
2,802
287
California
✟4,662.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You don't see a problem with this statement? A need to re-think it, perhaps?

Except I'm not backed by a religion that tells me not to judge, nor am I making an active attempt to make being pro-life illegal.

But it's really cute when pro-lifers try to play victim. Real cute indeed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums