Abortion

[augustino5150]

Bible Errors?

I only used bible quotes to show your erroneous claims about what the bible says and I quoted rabbinical law to show your errors there as well.

Abortions’ kill unborn babies. You are the one who wished to bring "religious" perspectives into the discussion and then throw a hiss fit when you are challenged on your own argument.

No one has asked for you to play God. Killing innocent life is just wrong. Raising children is certainly as much a burden as bearing one so perhaps we should allow the woman to end the life of her child at any stage before adulthood? Or is it just tidier to kill it before you have to look into its eyes? Maybe adoption should be the alternative to raising a child…you know, like let it live.

Your quotes and Rabbinical Law are from the modern era. The errors are modern. And this is why I can't accept revealed religions. The Holy Books undergo constant change. Why does God keep changing his mind?

The "religious perspectives" are the driving force behind the movement. Without them we wouldn't even be having this debate and I don't throw hissy nor himmy fits but you do seem to be heading in that direction.

Adopt? Let it live?
Yes! I agree but I still will not order a woman to bear a child against her will and will not cast a vote for anyone who will order a woman to bear a child against her will.

You say no one has asked for me to play God but that is exactly what you're doing when you ask me to support a law that orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

There are 613 sins that are an abomination to God. Shall we require men to wear pecker meters?
Masturbation is one of those abominations. If we can force a woman to bear a child against her will we can certainly force you to wear a pecker meter. After all, how else will we know if you're spanking the monkey?

 

[Canceled2]

Your quotes and Rabbinical Law are from the modern era. The errors are modern. And this is why I can't accept revealed religions. The Holy Books undergo constant change. Why does God keep changing his mind?

The "religious perspectives" are the driving force behind the movement. Without them we wouldn't even be having this debate and I don't throw hissy nor himmy fits but you do seem to be heading in that direction.

Adopt? Let it live?
Yes! I agree but I still will not order a woman to bear a child against her will and will not cast a vote for anyone who will order a woman to bear a child against her will.

You say no one has asked for me to play God but that is exactly what you're doing when you ask me to support a law that orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

There are 613 sins that are an abomination to God. Shall we require men to wear pecker meters?
Masturbation is one of those abominations. If we can force a woman to bear a child against her will we can certainly force you to wear a pecker meter. After all, how else will we know if you're spanking the monkey?

My rabbinical references were for modern times true, but they were formed based on ancient script...I don't give a rats ass what you do or do not subscribe to...again, you interjected religion into the discussion and I merely corrected your argument!

I would prefer to argue abortion from an ethical and scientific position.

 

[augustino5150]

Thanks for the Proof!

My rabbinical references were for modern times true, but they were formed based on ancient script...I don't give a rats ass what you do or do not subscribe to...again, you interjected religion into the discussion and I merely corrected your argument!

I would prefer to argue abortion from an ethical and scientific position.

Yes...they were formed, by opinion. Man's opinion. Isn't that man playing God?
You know, this is supposed to be fun. I'm never offended and never lose my temper. In fact, I sometimes have trouble keeping control of my typing finger for the laughing but I'm as serious as a heart attack when it comes to my beliefs...as are you.

There is no way to argue abortion from an ethical and scientific position.
Civilization is a truce among men. It's a truce that has been broken continuously in the name of ethics and science.

You own your body. That is a basic human right. No man has the right to order you to bear a child against your will. That makes that man your owner and that breaks the truce.

Have you not learned from the raping of women in the Balkans? We still have troops over there!

So, in the end, there is no debate. I will never cast a vote for anyone who orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

 

[Canceled2]

Yes...they were formed, by opinion. Man's opinion. Isn't that man playing God?
You know, this is supposed to be fun. I'm never offended and never lose my temper. In fact, I sometimes have trouble keeping control of my typing finger for the laughing but I'm as serious as a heart attack when it comes to my beliefs...as are you.

There is no way to argue abortion from an ethical and scientific position.
Civilization is a truce among men. It's a truce that has been broken continuously in the name of ethics and science.

You own your body. That is a basic human right. No man has the right to order you to bear a child against your will. That makes that man your owner and that breaks the truce.

Have you not learned from the raping of women in the Balkans? We still have troops over there!

So, in the end, there is no debate. I will never cast a vote for anyone who orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

What I have proven is that you threw out references that were either factually incorrect or misconstrued. What you have failed to do is make an argument that considers your position reasonable.

The ethical argument most certainly can and is made about abortion. Scientifically we know without any doubt that at conception a person is biologically complete and alive. This new person remains alive unless killed by medical or natural means.

This knowledge introduces an ethical question to the very foundation of abortion laws; Are we killing an innocent human being? Constitutional protection to life is the springboard by which a challenge to Roe will come. I would think pro abortionists such as yourself would be wanting to sharpen every sword for the battle by debating the ethical and scientific realities of the abortion debate.

 

[Good Luck]

Notice that the pro-abortionists continue to completely ignore - and even refute - proven science. "I THINK they are not human until they are born."

Science proves they are ALIVE, they are HUMAN. You can look it up in ANY basic biology text. Read about the science of reproduction in mammals.

Thus claiming otherwise is either ignorance or a lie. Which is it?

Since when should inalienable rights (life being the first and foremost) be allotted according to opinion?

 

[Canceled2]

Notice that the pro-abortionists continue to completely ignore - and even refute - proven science. "I THINK they are not human until they are born."

Science proves they are ALIVE, they are HUMAN. You can look it up in ANY basic biology text. Read about the science of reproduction in mammals.

Thus claiming otherwise is either ignorance or a lie. Which is it?

Since when should inalienable rights (life being the first and foremost) be allotted according to opinion?

Or for that matter because a parent, the mother, wants to kill her unborn baby's life for convenience sake!

 

[Damocles]

You don't have to be a liberal to support freedom. Only a slave can be ordered to have a child against her will. The baby isn't a human being until it can live on it's own and that goes all the way back to the beginning of civilization.

The religious argument doesn't fly either. Jesus was a first century Hebrew. He believed that the soul didn't enter the body until it had lived a month on it's own. That's why they didn't even name the rug rat until it's 30th day.

Welcome to the board.

 

[Canceled1]

Welcome to the board.

Oh fer chrissakes. The Abortion Debate!

Talk about rode hard and put away wet!

 

[Liberty]

You mean the ones that have been kept ignorant of sex education and reproductive biology by stupid conservative policies like "Abstinence only"?

Gee, I thought they were the enlightened ones.

You know, have babies, get welfare. The more babies, the more welfare.

I guess it's all in the way you look at it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Gee, I thought they were the enlightened ones.

You know, have babies, get welfare. The more babies, the more welfare.

I guess it's all in the way you look at it.

for tuesday... I am going to be gone from 3:00pm mtn time onward. So if at all possible, could you post your original position and question prior to that?

Thanks!

 

[Liberty]

for tuesday... I am going to be gone from 3:00pm mtn time onward. So if at all possible, could you post your original position and question prior to that?

Thanks!

I'll be at work, but I'll do my best.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Notice that the pro-abortionists continue to completely ignore - and even refute - proven science. "I THINK they are not human until they are born."

Science proves they are ALIVE, they are HUMAN. You can look it up in ANY basic biology text. Read about the science of reproduction in mammals.

Thus claiming otherwise is either ignorance or a lie. Which is it?

Since when should inalienable rights (life being the first and foremost) be allotted according to opinion?

Go see my posting in the debate competition. I articulated that point way more clearly then you have.

What bothers me about the so called pro life stance is that its extreme is every bit as immoral as the pro-choice extreme. Since we know that both extremes of the abortion issue are immoral, when is it moral to have an abortion? When is it morally permissable and who gets to make that decision?

You're comments are also a bit of strawman. The pro choice argument is a legal one and not a biological one as you stated. Human life does begin at conception, that's a fact no one really argues. The question that the pro-choice position ask is does legal person hood begin at conception or birth? The current legal definition is that legal person hood begins at birth.

 

[Canceled2]

Go see my posting in the debate competition. I articulated that point way more clearly then you have.

What bothers me about the so called pro life stance is that its extreme is every bit as immoral as the pro-choice extreme. Since we know that both extremes of the abortion issue are immoral, when is it moral to have an abortion? When is it morally permissable and who gets to make that decision?

You're comments are also a bit of strawman. The pro choice argument is a legal one and not a biological one as you stated. Human life does begin at conception, that's a fact no one really argues. The question that the pro-choice position ask is does legal person hood begin at conception or birth? The current legal definition is that legal person hood begins at birth.

Note: What is extreme about the pro-life "stance" position? Certainly there are some who think abortion for any reason is not OK...but that's about 18%. Hardly the "whole stance".

The current legal position is arbitrary at best when you can bring criminal injury or manslaughter charges against a person who causes harm or death to the unborn. The fact of the matter is, that legal language does not equal ethical liability. This arbitrary defining of the unborn IS going to be the underpinings of future legal challenges.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Yes...they were formed, by opinion. Man's opinion. Isn't that man playing God?
You know, this is supposed to be fun. I'm never offended and never lose my temper. In fact, I sometimes have trouble keeping control of my typing finger for the laughing but I'm as serious as a heart attack when it comes to my beliefs...as are you.

There is no way to argue abortion from an ethical and scientific position.
Civilization is a truce among men. It's a truce that has been broken continuously in the name of ethics and science.

You own your body. That is a basic human right. No man has the right to order you to bear a child against your will. That makes that man your owner and that breaks the truce.

Have you not learned from the raping of women in the Balkans? We still have troops over there!

So, in the end, there is no debate. I will never cast a vote for anyone who orders a woman to bear a child against her will.

I can own my own body. Can I own my own slaves, as well?

 

[Canceled2]

I can own my own body. Can I own my own slaves, as well?

You put your finger on it...un-born babies are property to be kept or disposed of at will.

 

[christiefan915]

Having an abortion is as much about character as it is about circumstance. All the sex education in the world can't make a girl into a worthwhile human being.

Also, I was a sheltered child, but I didn't need the 4 straight years of sex ed to enlighten me that "safety first, lads," is more than just a British expression.

I wonder how many men insist on using birth control 100% of the time to try and insure no pregnancy occurs, whether or not the woman uses birth control.

If, in spite of everything the woman gets pregnant, I wonder how many men step up and ask the woman not to have an abortion because they'll take the baby and support it instead.

People put the onus of this on the woman but how many of them are willing to take on a lifetime of responsibility for an infant if the woman carries to term. For example, would you adopt the neighbor girl's baby if it wasn't yours, but you were able to talk her out of having an abortion?

 

[Cypress]

I wonder how many men insist on using birth control 100% of the time to try and insure no pregnancy occurs, whether or not the woman uses birth control.

17.58 %

If, in spite of everything the woman gets pregnant, I wonder how many men step up and ask the woman not to have an abortion because they'll take the baby and support it instead.

Zero

People put the onus of this on the woman but how many of them are willing to take on a lifetime of responsibility for an infant if the woman carries to term.

For example, would you adopt the neighbor girl's baby if it wasn't yours, but you were able to talk her out of having an abortion?

No.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I wonder how many men insist on using birth control 100% of the time to try and insure no pregnancy occurs, whether or not the woman uses birth control.

If, in spite of everything the woman gets pregnant, I wonder how many men step up and ask the woman not to have an abortion because they'll take the baby and support it instead.

People put the onus of this on the woman but how many of them are willing to take on a lifetime of responsibility for an infant if the woman carries to term. For example, would you adopt the neighbor girl's baby if it wasn't yours, but you were able to talk her out of having an abortion?

I would never, ever, have unprotected sex, because its retarded not to. Period.

Most young men who would wind up in the situation are stupid and immature, so that's a good point. Of course, we are constantly bombarded with arguments that men don't get to have a say in the matter, anyway...

 

[Canceled2]

I would never, ever, have unprotected sex, because its retarded not to. Period.

Most young men who would wind up in the situation are stupid and immature, so that's a good point. Of course, we are constantly bombarded with arguments that men don't get to have a say in the matter, anyway...

Not mention that arguing to kill a baby because the guy's irresponsible is absurd. The woman likley finds herself pregnant from her own irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility should never be a reason/excuse to kill a baby.

 

[Good Luck]

Go see my posting in the debate competition. I articulated that point way more clearly then you have.

What bothers me about the so called pro life stance is that its extreme is every bit as immoral as the pro-choice extreme. Since we know that both extremes of the abortion issue are immoral, when is it moral to have an abortion? When is it morally permissable and who gets to make that decision?

You're comments are also a bit of strawman. The pro choice argument is a legal one and not a biological one as you stated. Human life does begin at conception, that's a fact no one really argues. The question that the pro-choice position ask is does legal person hood begin at conception or birth? The current legal definition is that legal person hood begins at birth.

Look back at the other posts. Someone specifically claimed unborn children are not human. The claim is made EVERY time this topic is discussed, and not always by the same poster. Therefore it is a widely held opinion that is easily proven false by science.

As such, it is not strawman as long as people make the false claim that unborn human children are not human. They make the claim, science refutes it.

As for the difference between a legal and biological, it is again not strawman. First, every dictionary on the English language defines a person as a living human. Second, what is the justification for excluding ANY living human from the legal definition of person? What is the justification for stating, essentially, that the scientific definition of living human is not good enough to be the legal standard? What is the justification for taking the stance that legal OPINION should be the standard for determining who has basic human rights, and who does not?

The problem with accepting the idea that opinion can/should be used to provide the legal definition of person is opinion varies, both between people and over time. There was a time when the legal opinion was that my people were not granted human rights. There was a time when the legal opinion was that blacks were not fully human, and could therefore be owned like cattle. Even today there are cultures that use legal definitions of humanity to exclude targeted classes of humans for discrimination, and sometimes elimination.

How is saying "the unborn may be biologically living humans, but aren't worthy of human rights" any different from the time when prevailing opinion stated "blacks may be biologically human, but they aren't worthy of human rights"? What is the functional difference between excluding the unborn from protection under the law, and excluding any other class of living human being from protection under the law?