This Epitomizes Why Abortion Is Wrong !

a reply to: adjensen

I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. In this case it doesn't.

a reply to: adjensen

What is your justification for killing it prior to your arbitrary 16 week deadline, that even you admit isn't hard and fast?

Medical necessity.

That's the only reason I personally support abortion. I just don't think my view should dictate the actions or freedoms of others.

As wrong as they may be about it.

~Tenth

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: windword

But, you know as well as I that law, Unborn Victims of Violence Act was the brain child of the religious right and the pro-life community

Okay, so let me make sure that I understand what you're saying.

If a pregnant woman, who wants to be pregnant, is assaulted and the result of that assault is the loss of her child, the person who attacks her should only be charged with simple assault, right? A punch in the abdomen that results in a miscarriage should be treated no differently than me being punched in the abdomen?

Funny one

But it also begs the question, suppose a man is damaged in certain areas, could he sue because it affects his ability to procreate until it heals?

But this question of personhood, where is the line drawn? What defines a person? Someone already defined it as something more than a parasite. But there was a time when people like me weren't considered persons enough to preserve their lives. If personhood takes a narrow view, then who is next when it comes to what a person is?

For a short, bright shining time, people like me were allowed to live outside sanitariums and have some quality of life. Since 1945, at least we are no longer victims of Eugenics. But it won't last long if someone else has the choice to define what my personhood is. But it is apparent that choice is more sacred than life.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Medical necessity.

That's the only reason I personally support abortion.

Okay, just so that I'm clear on it, you're a supporter of "the ends justify the means", right? You are saying that an evil (killing an unborn child) is acceptable in favour of a good (the expectation that killing the infant will result in the woman living.)

a reply to: windword

I think that you need to clarify that. Which is lacking -- the punishment, or the crime?

a reply to: WarminIndy

But this question of personhood, where is the line drawn?

On their birthday! When they officially enter the world and take their first breath, they are a person. Congratulations are in order!

a reply to: adjensen

What part about "The punishment should fit the crime" don't you understand?

Exodus 21:22
If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

a reply to: adjensen

I mean it's gonna sound twisted any way I word it...

But I do support saving the woman and aborting the child, if BOTH cannot be saved.

Actually I guess I would support which ever party had the best chance at a healthy life.

~Tenth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

But this question of personhood, where is the line drawn?

On their birthday! When they officially enter the world and take their first breath, they are a person. Congratulations are in order!

And they won't enter it when they have that opportunity taken away from them.

You just said that a baby is not a person the day before it is born....so it is ok to abort them the day before they are to be born?

a reply to: windword

Where have I ever relied on a Bible quote for my arguments in this thread?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Actually I guess I would support which ever party had the best chance at a healthy life.

If a woman has a healthy pregnancy and gives up her child for adoption, who has the best chance at a healthy life?

We apparently agree that abortion results in a 50% (or more) death rate, while spending that 9 months in gestation would result in a 100% (or so) life rate, so why not prefer adoption over abortion?

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: windword

Where have I ever relied on a Bible quote for my arguments in this thread?

Like Tenth told me.... you'll have to go back and read them again, then maybe you'll catch the subliminal God messages we're putting out.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: windword

Where have I ever relied on a Bible quote for my arguments in this thread?

What difference does it make if you quote the Bible or not? This thread is in a religious forum. You have claimed religious reasons for your opinion, and you asked about justice for causing a miscarriage. That verse is an example of how your question was handled in the Bible. A pregnant woman was considered a person, a fetus was not. A monetary fine was imposed.

Depending on the nature of the assault, the punishment should fit the crime.

a reply to: WarminIndy

An unborn "baby" is a fetus. A fetus is not a person. A person is someone who is born, who has taken a breath. If the fetus was born a day earlier, it would be a person a day earlier.

a reply to: windword

You have claimed religious reasons for your opinion

No, I didn't.

I have been fairly consistent, both here and on the radio program -- my objections to abortion are legal, not religious.

a reply to: adjensen

People who can discount embryos as being not alive, not worthy of life, or not equal in their right to live don't see it that way, but I do, and I do for legal, as well as religious, reasons.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

An unborn "baby" is a fetus. A fetus is not a person. A person is someone who is born, who has taken a breath. If the fetus was born a day earlier, it would be a person a day earlier.

It's not the point of on which day, but the day before.

A baby the day before it is born can be aborted? Are you saying a baby that is fully formed, in the proper position, with a fully operating brain...can be aborted the day before it is born?

You mean that a baby that is just 24 hours away from taking that first breath can be aborted?

But you do realize that you yourself is nothing but a blob of cells, ultimately that is all that you are. I don't have to think of you as a person either just because you breathe. Even lower animals breathe. You are nothing but strings of DNA and a large blob of cells. If you, as nothing but that, have the right to achieve breathing, then why should that right be taken from someone else, if ultimately you are the same thing.

If personhood is defined as breathing, then lower animals are persons also.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Unfortunately, late term abortion are a necessity.

Once a fetus is out of the uterus, and surviving on its own (viability), its a person. Some people are born very premature and need a lot of help.

One of the "requirements" for being a person is being human, although, pets are people too!

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Margaret Sanger Quotes

Pro-lifers like to bring up Margaret Sanger as if Pro-Choicers march lock-step with every opinion someone who happened to be Pro-choice.

Reminds me how the Holocaust and slavery are correlated to abortion, but are only "correct" comparisons if the person first agrees on the polemic terms pro-lifers use in their philosophy. Not to mention the fact that the terms they use are legally wrong in the first place.

originally posted by: adjensen
It doesn't have more rights, it has equal rights. It has a right to life, just as she has a right to life.

That's the atheist argument, by the way, but it's one that I agree with.

Roe was about competing rights. But it seems you don't know about rights involved in the abortion issue.

Roe concluded that no one born or otherwise has or should have rights pro-lifers wanted to grant to the unborn.

Say you negligently started a fire and you were the only bone marrow match for a person who is dying as a result from it, it would be a very upright and good of you to donate to him/her, but the state cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure to which you have not consented. You may be thrown in jail or pay with your wallet, you don't pay for it with your own bodily resources.

The right to usurp anothers bodily integrity against their will was what Roe was about. Having "equal rights" won't change that.

And to forstall the inevitable Responsibility-argument - "she had sex so she made her mind and can't do anything about it". . . please.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: Bone75
If you cant breathe for yourself or nourish yourself or exist by yourself....

If you are reliant on another to enable those things .... You are a parasite ....

So then do you become a parasite when you are too old to do those things by yourself?
Good to know that I am nearly a "useless bread eater" because I have MS and now in a wheelchair. Tell you what, instead of me becoming a parasite on society, you come and remove me from society and then you can have a bigger share of bread.

Sound fair?

I think he uses parasite in the more literal term, being dependent on another persons bodily resources. You are using the term in the other manner which is causing the "confusion" (?).

Removing the rights of privacy involved in abortion is basically a proposition that a womans body can be invaded without her consent, and she has no say in the matter being denied the ability to make her own decisions regarding the use of her own body and her specific objections being ignored and disregarded. Kind of like if we took you and injected an alien inside your body, then legally prevented you from having it removed.

Roe v Wade wasn't about being a "burden on society".

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Bone75

Isn't your core problem with abortion is that your religion compels you to?

I haven't always been religious, and was even anti-Jesus for a while there, but I've always been against abortion. So no, its not my religion that compels me, its my humanity.

Have you read any actual science on this, beyond what you were taught in school?

I'm not asking to be mean, I'm wondering if you are actually as educated as other people who have actually studied this are?

I know my stuff dude, your little rabbit punches are getting annoying.

No no, I was poking fun at your logic, not mine. What you quoted as me saying is absurd, that's why I wrote it, cause it's absurd, but follows your original logic of a person becoming a person at conception.

It was absurd, and I don't understand how your analogy follows my logic at all. Sperm and eggs aren't humans, they are bi-products of humans.

I just don't see a scientific view point to your argument. All I see is religion, well the OP anyway, and you've made no mention of anything scientific otherwise.

My scientific viewpoint is that you can't be in 2 places at one time. True or false?

The only place that science can definitively point to as the beginning of your existence is the moment you were conceived. Whether or not you think you were just a useless blob for the next 16 weeks doesn't matter because you can't say that wasn't you.