Abortions - Why so bad?

a reply to: Annee

I know I've read practically the whole thread.

It's varying opinions on when a human being is a human being and viability, mainly in the legal realm.

With cryopreservation, viability is at conception, therefore where the law stands now, the unborn are now viable at any stage, therefore they morally should not be destroyed.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

That’s because only you and sookie persist in using misnomers and fanciful language to obscure and confound reality.

Legally speaking, zygotes, embryos, early stage fetus' is the language for non-viable life in a womb, without personhood, therefore without human rights.

a reply to: Grenade

Women need alternatives to abortion, not to be forced into situations that harm their spirit, body or mind. That's not pro-life in my opinion.

a reply to: quintessentone

Morality requires belief in a universal authority, pro-choice folk just do what they feel without any consideration of the moral implications.

a reply to: quintessentone

It’s called contraception.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

It’s called contraception.

Yeah, I was on the pill.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Morality requires belief in a universal authority, pro-choice folk just do what they feel without any consideration of the moral implications.

Who's morality?

a reply to: quintessentone

No, they’re biological definitions of individual stages of development with their own separate descriptions.

a reply to: Annee

Morality by definition requires belief in a universal authority. How can one be good or bad without a measure of those principles?

a reply to: Annee

Sure you were. I bet you never missed a day.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

It’s called contraception.

People are flawed, people make mistakes and as such alternatives should be in place to educate, provide alternatives to abortion, etc. Not to take away a woman's choice for her health in any way she needs to keep healthy.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

I know I've read practically the whole thread.

It's varying opinions on when a human being is a human being and viability, mainly in the legal realm.

With cryopreservation, viability is at conception, therefore where the law stands now, the unborn are now viable at any stage, therefore they morally should not be destroyed.

Very Orwellian.

Again, who's morality?

My morality is taking care of those already LIVING. Not forcing unwanted.

According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty – that’s 18 children dying every minute, a child every three seconds

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

Morality requires belief in a universal authority, pro-choice folk just do what they feel without any consideration of the moral implications.

Who's morality?

For Grenade - How is it moral to force a woman to carry to term when it may damage her health in different ways for different women?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

Sure you were. I bet you never missed a day.

I didn't.

a reply to: Annee

I agree, the pro-lifers throw around that word 'morality' but don't really seem to understand the big picture.

a reply to: Annee

I don’t think you understand the concept of morality. By what standard does abortion meet the definition of being morally good?

You think abortion is a virtuous act?

a reply to: quintessentone

The thread title asks a question about morality.

Why so bad? We’re debating the topic.

a reply to: Annee

See Annee, you are basically not believed because facts that the pill can be neutralized by certain medication is dismissed, because it messes with the existing confirmation bias.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

I don’t think you understand the concept of morality. By what standard does abortion meet the definition of being morally good?

You think abortion is a virtuous act?

You're arguing against feeding LIVING children who die every 3 seconds from poverty.

Factually -- there is not one unselfish reason to procreate.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

I don’t think you understand the concept of morality. By what standard does abortion meet the definition of being morally good?

You think abortion is a virtuous act?

You're arguing against feeding LIVING children who die every 3 seconds from poverty.

Factually -- there is not one unselfish reason to procreate.

The concept of morality is directly related to selfish or unselfish reasons it would appear. The players born and unborn are secondary considerations, it would appear.