Abortion is morally WRONG

Abortion is of good deed.

Want not, keep not.

We must be conservative in our production of further flesh containers upon the planet.

Thou commoners are of no worthy asset to us other than as slaves.

Another flesh container equals another slave.

Doeth thou wish further slaves upon your pheasant bloodlines?

Originally posted by Brood
Me? I'm not an abscess in a woman's uterus.

Neither is an unborn child.

Originally posted by Brood
But feel free to continue... quite literally... screaming bloody murder about things that aren't any of your business.

It is absolutely my business, just as it is my business to actively object to someone else's ''personal choice'' to murder, rape or rob.

What I've noticed on this thread, is there is a lot of dishonesty, disingenuity and deflection from many of the pro-abortion posters.

To selectively philosophise on the subject of morality, when it comes down to this issue, seems very suspicious.

Yes, morality is selective, but when people refer to something being ''moral'' or ''immoral'', they are invariably using genrally accepted societal standards to define morality. ie. The Golden Rule.

Even if you are a nihilist, or don't subscribe to the Golden Rule, then you still know what is being implied in this context, even if you personally disagree with it.


To focus exclusively on the subjectivity of morality comes across as a red herring.

What hasn't happened too much on this thread, is pro-abortionists attempting to morally justify abortion.

I find this very intriguing, because it suggests that many pro-abortionists accept that abortion doesn't stnad up to society's moral norms.

What makes this particularly interesting, is that you can only really be ''immoral'' if your actions are affecting someone else; so, in this way, many pro-abortionists are tacitly admitting that abortion does affect ''someone'' other than the mother.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

What makes this particularly interesting, is that you can only really be ''immoral'' if your actions are affecting someone else; so, in this way, many pro-abortionists are tacitly admitting that abortion does affect ''someone'' other than the mother.

Yes, you could say it affects someone else. But preventing someones existence is not immoral, or crime. Otherwise birth control or condoms would be immoral, too.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Again, it depends on someone's personal definition of when ''someone'' starts to exist, not a factual definition.

I agree.

It just seem absurd to me to protect a bunch of cells. Why dont we protect all the life on Earth then? There must be something that sets apart a microorganism or a plant from human being (or higher animals). And that something is nervous system. It is nervous system capable of sentience that our rights stem from, IMHO.

Protecting human embryos just because it is human life is specieism (a form of racism), unless you protect all other life on Earth in similar development stage.

Originally posted by Maslo
Yes, you could say it affects someone else. But preventing someones existence is not immoral, or crime. Otherwise birth control or condoms would be immoral, too.

There's a big difference between birth control and abortion ( sorry, Catholics ).

Sperm can't become a human being, unless it has an ovum to fertilise.

Abortion occurs after human life has been created. It's not preventing a human coming into existence.

Ok, that's obviously not the legal view of things, but the law was created to be expedient, so as women can have sex freely while legally being able to abrogate their responsibilities.

The law was not created because it's ethically correct.

I'm a Father of 3 children and I cared about their well-being long before they were born. I think it's natural for both Mother's and Father's to have a deep emotional interest in the well-being of their offspring (both born and unborn).

To say that Men should just "shut-up," "butt out" etc. etc. if someone wants to throw their unborn in the trash, is a profoundly disrespectful and unrealistic attitude.

An invisible candle shines form behind the visible silence, inside and underneath the noise i swim with the Dolphins and whales, upon the edges of oblivion I dance and sing for them. Light holding shadows approach the mirage. Harken tales of resurrection, this laughter is from knowing these lips are from yonder, it is your fear that hears the gallops near.An echo pulses louder as the waves wash their blood on to the shores,the blackness the darkness forever. They sleep over the corpse of the homo sapien,Our song will ring sonorous ,form the Puparium we vent riddles of repugnance ,sensed of she seduction fragrance.The hand of compassionate woman have cook their own children;they become food for them in the destruction or the daughter of my people .

reply to post by sheepslayer247


"Morality is relative to each individual person. The criteria used to form your morals may not be the same as another person's. "

Sorry , but this statement of yours is a COP OUT . Morality is Well Defined for any Logical Thinking person to Comprehend . The Difference Between what is RIGHT and what is Wrong . We are all taught this Concept as Children , and only as we Mature and become Adults do we sometimes Forget that by Rationalizing our Contrary Behavior to it .

Originally posted by Maslo
It just seem absurd to me to protect a bunch of cells.

LOL.

Aren't we all a ''bunch of cells'' ?!

Originally posted by Maslo
Why dont we protect all the life on Earth then? There must be something that sets apart a microorganism or a plant from human being (or higher animals). And that something is nervous system. It is nervous system capable of sentience that our rights stem from, IMHO.

This is an opinion-based, arbitrary definition, of when human life starts. It's not tangible.

Some functions of the nervous system develop between 15-28 weeks, so nervous system development varies between unborn babies.

And isn't ''nervous system capable of sentience'' another intangible, philosophical concept ?

How would you go about attempting to factually prove ''sentience'' ?

Originally posted by Maslo
Protecting human embryos just because it is human life is specieism (a form of racism), unless you protect all other life on Earth in similar development stage.

Speciesism is true racism, but it is commonplace in society, so why do you bring it up selectively on this particular issue ?

It's speciesist to allow animal meat to be eaten, while outlawing cannibalism.

It's speciesist to carry out cruel tests on rats and monkeys, but to prohibit testing in humans.

It's speciesist to allow people to own a pet, while outlawing slavery.

Etc, etc.


This is what I mean about deflection and red herrings that are used by pro-abortionists all the time.

I'm surprised to hear it come from you, though.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
"Morality is relative to each individual person. The criteria used to form your morals may not be the same as another person's. "

Sorry , but this statement of yours is a COP OUT . Morality is Well Defined for any Logical Thinking person to Comprehend . The Difference Between what is RIGHT and what is Wrong . We are all taught this Concept as Children , and only as we Mature and become Adults do we sometimes Forget that by Rationalizing our Contrary Behavior to it .

The selective questioning of the concept of morality, is nothing more than a diversionary tactic used by some on this thread.

Morality is subjective, but we all know the generally accepted societal standards of morality that are being referred to ( ie. the Golden Rule ).

Someone doesn't need to adhere to this morality, to understand what is being implied by the general terms of ''moral'' and ''immoral''.


We wouldn't get anywhere on a discussion board, if every single thread had people stalling the discussion by philosophising on the very nature of morality; so it's a bit suspicious that people are selectively doing so on this thread.

Ok, I accept that ''morality'' is actually in the thread title, but the OP outlines his thoughts on the subject for someone to agree or disagree with, so just nagging on about the subjectivity of morality is nothing more than deflection tactics from many of the pro-abortion posters.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


" Ok, I accept that ''morality'' is actually in the thread title, but the OP outlines his thoughts on the subject for someone to agree or disagree with, so just nagging on about the subjectivity of morality is nothing more than deflection tactics from many of the pro-abortion posters. "


Ah , Thanks for Clearing that Up , I Think...............

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Speciesism is true racism, but it is commonplace in society, so why do you bring it up selectively on this particular issue ?

Because it is wrong. We have plenty of laws against animal cruelty etc. And they are all based on nervous system of the animal. Thats why it is not illegal to "torture" plants, but it is illegal to torture higher animals.

It's speciesist to allow animal meat to be eaten, while outlawing cannibalism.

It is. When we learn how to effectively produce meat without killing animals, I hope killing them for food would be outlawed.

It's speciesist to carry out cruel tests on rats and monkeys, but to prohibit testing in humans.

Cruel tests are not allowed, at least in my country. The importance of testing on animals is so big that the pros outweight the cons. If this would not be the case, it would be surely outlawed.

It's speciesist to allow people to own a pet, while outlawing slavery.

Pet is more like a child than a slave. When you do not care about pet, it is a crime.

There's a big difference between birth control and abortion ( sorry, Catholics ).

For me, there is not.

Sperm can't become a human being, unless it has an ovum to fertilise.

Bunch of cells is not a being. It is life, but life is not protected.

Abortion occurs after human life has been created. It's not preventing a human coming into existence.

Human life is not protected, only human beings. Thats why it is legal to let brain dead patients die, even tough their bodies could live on life support for a long time. Thats also why abortion is legal in most of the world.

The law was not created because it's ethically correct.

The law is a mix of ethics, practice, and individual moral relativity. I agree, it is often not ethicaly correct, but the trouble is, ethics differ among different individuals, so it is impossible for law to be ethicaly correct for more than some little subset of population.

This is an opinion-based, arbitrary definition, of when human life starts. It's not tangible. Some functions of the nervous system develop between 15-28 weeks, so nervous system development varies between unborn babies.

This is not true. Neurology is a hard natural science, and sentience is based entirely on tangible laws of biology. A big part of the world has abortion laws and other laws based on this concept.

And isn't ''nervous system capable of sentience'' another intangible, philosophical concept ?

Why? It is a physical concept, just like all other things in human body. It is the only non-arbitrary way of determining what to protect and what to not protect. Contrary to your arbitrary definition based on an order of some nucleotides in some cells.

Originally posted by Maslo
Because it is wrong. We have plenty of laws against animal cruelty etc. And they are all based on nervous system of the animal. Thats why it is not illegal to "torture" plants, but it is illegal to torture higher animals.

You are drawing an erroneous conclusion by suggesting that these laws are based on the nervous system.

It could be equally argued that these laws are simply based on anthropomorphism.

Have you got anything to back up your claim that laws are based on the nervous systems of an animal ?

It's also perfectly legal to torture some animals with nervous systems.

Originally posted by Maslo
It is. When we learn how to effectively produce meat without killing animals, I hope killing them for food would be outlawed.

As no-one is forcing anybody to eat animals now, then it is clearly wrong to knowingly do so, by the standards of your own argument.

So, effectively, you are just backing up my point on your selective cries of speciesism on this one issue.

Originally posted by Maslo
Cruel tests are not allowed, at least in my country. The importance of testing on animals is so big that the pros outweight the cons. If this would not be the case, it would be surely outlawed.

LOL.

Aren't all tests on laboratory animals, by definition, cruel ?

I saw one once, where they grew a human ear on a mouse. Clearly, such tests would not be allowed on humans.

Your assertion that the pros outweigh the cons of animal testing is a speciesist argument.

Clearly, your assertion is that beneficial medical treatment to humans is acceptable, at the detriment of life of another species.

Once again, you have just reinforced my point about selective complaints on this issue.

Originally posted by Maslo
Pet is more like a child than a slave. When you do not care about pet, it is a crime.

You'd put a child in a hamster cage ?! You'd neuter a child ?

Pets are the equivalent of slaves.

Originally posted by Maslo
For me, there is not.

That's fair enough. But how do you come to that belief ?

Originally posted by Maslo
Bunch of cells is not a being. It is life, but life is not protected.

Again, we're down to individual interpretations, not factual ones.

Originally posted by Maslo
Human life is not protected, only human beings. Thats why it is legal to let brain dead patients die, even tough their bodies could live on life support for a long time. Thats also why abortion is legal in most of the world.

You are talking about legal definitions.

This debate is not about legal issues surrounding abortions, but moral ones.

If we all accepted the laws of the day as morally acceptable, then laws would never change.

Originally posted by Maslo
The law is a mix of ethics, practice, and individual moral relativity. I agree, it is often not ethicaly correct, but the trouble is, ethics differ among different individuals, so it is impossible for law to be ethicaly correct for more than some little subset of population.

Society has an ethical framework that most people, being brought up with those ethics, abide by. It's not just a little subset of the population.

It's the only way to have a smoothly run society.

Abortion is not ethically justifiable, unless in the case of rape. The law was created to be expedient.

Originally posted by Maslo
This is not true. Neurology is a hard natural science, and sentience is based entirely on tangible laws of biology. A big part of the world has abortion laws and other laws based on this concept.

Ok, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of that ( neurology is not my field of expertise ).

I thought you were using the colloquial definition of ''sentience''. I was not aware that there was an approved biological definition of it.

When does a fetus, on average, become tangibly sentient ?

Originally posted by Maslo
Contrary to your arbitrary definition based on an order of some nucleotides in some cells.

My definition is not arbitrary.

Fertilisation is the earliest stage of human life.

reply to post by Xiamara


["I however choose to believe if there were a higher power that higher power would accept and love all even for their mistakes instead God hates those who do not believe.']

there is and He does/did (he died for all so all died-now lives to intercede) but how can you know He loves you or feel the effects of that unconditional if one cannot believe He exists/rejected and would communicate to you somehow? what if God chose to communicate in the NT just for starters, to and through a woman and her having a child (of which we have all have been), you say I'm skeeered to voice my own but truth is I'm not much for writing not even text mssg (English grades since kindergarten would prove that), so for the most part I paste scriptures to spur on to ideas, back a position or related somehow to the subject thread or a post response in general, sometimes I think they are very clear sometimes not so much but understand my testimony or that voice was not because of anything good I did beforehand

for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works (but grace and forgiveness)

to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive.

reply to post by LordTacos


["practically insult them by throwing your faith in their face while saying those who believe otherwise are always wrong.']

are you practically insulting me by throwing your belief in my face and saying mine is wrong? if one sin is as bad as all what is putting one scripture...? should no one ever use any other writings from anyone about anything? what exactly do you think you would do if you have heard or seen what I have?

reply to post by Rustami


There is nothing that you can say that will convince me there is a god I respect that others choose to acknowledge there is but do not force your beliefs on to me. Until god proves his existence I will continue to believe he does not exist. he does not speak to me I doubt he ever will. I Do not take the New testament or even the old one to be word from god. It is a man made creation. I think of it like broken telephone. A message passed on so many times that it is now perverted and corrupt much like the catholic church. There are much old religions out there that make more sense to me Catholicism and Christianity are too young to be serious. I would sooner believe the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans than the Church, their gods had reasoning, it was logical, and it is far older than the Church.

I am a good person, I do not steal, I do not cheat, I try to avoid lying but that is nearly impossible, I support abortion because you are enforcing your choosing someones own fate/destiny/choices what have you. You can give them all the information you can think of but its still morally wrong to take away someones freedom.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


["No - you're wrong; sex is immoral unless within marriage and in the missionary position because the Christians know best. "]

now that is a funny, have you heard about the early Corinthian churchs sexual issues? todays? just what kind of sinners did he come to save? wonder what the free woman means? and why on earth were we made sexual creatures?

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other-1Corinthians

a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife

now that's what I call a missionary position and some kind of marriage

first of all respect EXISTING life, so be against war and rape and murder and sharia etc etc ..
ok ? so first of all respect EXISTING life, that is also life, no ?
so also respect and defend fight against poverty in USA, ok ? because lots of children living in poverty are dying a slow one !!! respect children first of all !! and their mothers teh same !! ok ???
then , only then, when you respect first of all every LIVING person, try to respect the not-yet-living ones .......
that is the problem : lots of religious extremists or tea party zealots are asking for respect for the not-yet-living ones, but NEVER have respect for the yet living ones living in poverty because of health problems, or etc etc ....
shame on you, first of all respect the living people, if you do that then you can respect the not-yet-living ones but NEVER judge a woman having abortion because you do not have that right to do so !!!!!
you are NOT G-d !! you are a zealot who wants to tell others how to behave not knowing the big problems of the weakest persons in our society !!!! moralists !!!

I just wanted to provide another reason why abortion SHOULD be free and SHOULD be allowed. It actually came to me when I was at my university and there was a fund-raising event for Aids. It made me realize not everyone can afford good Birth Control and sex to some is a need which needs to be satisfied so they use very very bad birth control methods. So yes they do take a risk but if you can't afford it does that mean you shouldn't do something good for you and your significant other?