Abortions - Why so bad?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Tipulatedone
The truth is most places around the world allow abortion up to a certain point, because every pregnancy is different and every woman's situation is different and can change in a matter of days or even hours. It doesn't matter what people think in pro life or choice it's none of your business and it's between the woman, and male involved (sometimes) and her doctor.

That's it exactly - it's none of anyone else's business, and certainly not the government's.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Dalamax
medicine.missouri.edu...#:~:text=It%20is%20common%20to%20assume,Homo%20sapiens%20(or%20relat ed).

What a load of hot c*ck lol.

Im still wondering which philosophy you were posting about and also how you came to your conclusion about the 99% convenience figure.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Premeditated killing of another human being??? A very sweeping statement and the answer is the same as abortions. Every situation has it's reasons and if you all can't see that then it's a really sad world.

You've been happily and lovingly been married to you lovely wife for 40 years, then she gets raped by a low life. Would you keep and love that child knowing it will always plague your wife psychologically for the rest of her life?

Not everything is so black and white and to put your thoughts and actions onto ANY woman is inherently evil and wrong.

I knew a woman who had been raped when she was young, got pregnant and had the child against her will.
Even though she married and had other children, she was always depressed, never saw her happy.
I often wonder what happened to her, because that incident ruined her life.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes -- because anyone forcing their religious beliefs into law is wrong.

But not all Christians agree that abortion is wrong.

True. My family and the church of my youth saw abortion as merciful. They believed ungodly children were more susceptible to eternal damnation than children born into godly households. Never being born was religiously preferable to eternity in Hell. Also, because, unlike widows and the affirmed, unwed mothers were a pariah on society.

Roe gave them the authority to demand abortion from their congregants, or get out, and they used ii often. Not a good look either.

Religion can be so fickle!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They believed ungodly children were more susceptible to eternal damnation than children born into godly households. Never being born religiously preferable to eternity in Hell. Also, because, unlike widows and the affirmed, unwed mothers were a pariah on society.

That is heavy stuff.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Don't worry. I am sure that's on Gates's to-do list. At that point, we may as well all be cattle on his breeding farm.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

That is why the argument is so difficult.

There should be no argument at all.

It's no one's business but the one who is making the choice.

Philosophically perhaps. But we live in reality where legislation rules. And that needs specificity to be genuine.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The whole thing honestly needs to be removed from the political debate. Morality is not quantifiable or definable from individual to individual. That's why intent plays a powerful role in the law.

Where I do think the law should come into play is late-term abortion. Even the doctors know that in all cases, even if it is a matter of the mother's life, a C-Section is less risky to the mother, so there is no reason for them not to both live.

And differing parties have differing views of what is moral. Some of those views are genuine, some are bought and paid for. Whatever the nature, where the law is the rule, there needs to be specificity in order for the law to be genuine. If it is so vague as to be up to individual perception then nothing has changed at all and the law accomplished nothing.

There are a myriad of conditions or circumstances that could pose a threat to either or both the mother/fetus well in advance of late term issues. I agree wholeheartedly that late term abortion simply should not happen unless the mother can not be saved any other way.

I also agree this should not be a political tool. To parade this out every few years to get votes is just wrong.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You clearly get my point and thank you for that. I think it's the most rational way to view this.

As I understand it from dozens of conversations over the years, two with actual physicians and much reading of credible articles, a C-section at late term is always the safest for the mother, and late-term abortion increases the risk to the mother. I've found when that is brought up with activists they fail to address that and try to divert the conversation as that is in fact true.

Due to the above, I see late-term abortion as one thing that should be criminal. It's clearly the taking of a life of a viable person who is a distinct and separate person from the mother. If the mother does not want the child fine, there are other avenues to take but it should not include infanticide for convenience.

This whole issue needs to be removed from the political theatre. For most of my life, most Democrats have been opposed to abortion entirely or after the first few months. Not long ago you would be hard-pressed to find a Democrat who agreed with late-term abortion. That travesty has evolved in the last decade or so.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

That is why the argument is so difficult.

There should be no argument at all.

It's no one's business but the one who is making the choice.

Philosophically perhaps. But we live in reality where legislation rules. And that needs specificity to be genuine.

Laws based on personal belief.

Who's personal belief?

It is primarily God believers that make this legislation.

a reply to: Dalamax
You are as lost as last year's Easter Egg.
Once you do a little research, instead of search and grab, get back to me.
"Which philosophy".....

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

That is why the argument is so difficult.

There should be no argument at all.

It's no one's business but the one who is making the choice.

Philosophically perhaps. But we live in reality where legislation rules. And that needs specificity to be genuine.

Laws based on personal belief.

Who's personal belief?

It is primarily God believers that make this legislation.

;

Let's base the laws on what science says!
You agree?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

That is why the argument is so difficult.

There should be no argument at all.

It's no one's business but the one who is making the choice.

Philosophically perhaps. But we live in reality where legislation rules. And that needs specificity to be genuine.

It is primarily God believers that make this legislation.

Don’t forget all that other bizarre legislation like not bearing false witness against your neighbour, not killing, not stealing, and treating your neighbours as you would yourself.

Fanatical craziness!

a reply to: Annee

You better hope God doesn't exist. There's always time to repent and confess your sins, even if it's a token gesture without belief, it's a good idea to reflect on the poor choices you've made and beg forgiveness, might help you grow rather than digging in your heels and pretending like you're infallible.

If you think the design and patterns all around us are the result of random chance then you're blind. Atheists only problem is that they need a miracle for our entropic universe to suddenly start building intelligent systems.

Go to a beach and wait for the wind to blow in just the right way to form a sand castle, see how long you're there.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You look in the mirror and see a logistician. I see a cold and dark hearted character, devoid of empathy.

a reply to: RonnieJersey

Irrelevant to this conversation. Am i supposed to advocate for murdering children before birth and then condemn afterward?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Once again i'm not Christian nor would i like to stereotype or cast aspersions on the motivations of others. I can tell you what i think and it's certainly not due to religious doctrine.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah, as a species we should cherish children from inception and be more responsible when considering the implications of our actions. People can f*ck like rabbits for all i care, as long as they take precautionary measures with the understanding that they risk becoming a parent.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Sure, by that logic i should support child abuse as it's none of my business.

If i see anyone smack a child in public, it becomes my business. I know more than most about physical abuse and i don't tolerate bullies, either online or in my day to day life.

I really don't give a rats patootie abort abortion one way or another.

Although I do enjoy asking anti-abortion people the same question. Exactly how many unwanted children have you personally adopted?