Abortion is morally WRONG

Originally posted by Rustami

it is no delusion, one night when I had begun to open the cover of a Gideon NT but before reading anything, that a woman who had recently got an abortion had left on the kitchen bar a few days earlier, I heard an audible invisible voice as if sitting on my left that said my name then " I am Jesus, I died for your sins believe in Me an you will never perish"

You do know that is pretty much the definition of "delusional" right?

There are plenty of medical conditions that you may have to help explain hearing voices.

reply to post by Monts


So is war.

Where is your outrage?

reply to post by Monts


Rape is morally wrong too. If perhaps you focused your noble efforts on eliminating this incidence you could go a long way toward ending abortion.

Why not try this way around the dilemma instead of demonizing (in I think a majority of cases) innocent and helpless desperate women and children. Is their life once they are born of no value?

Early term abortion is in every instance safer for the woman than live birth.
Every woman takes a chance with her life, bringing that baby to term.

Moral implies God and I would think God would know when and where to impart a soul. Don't make up like you know when this happens.

From another thread....

All "criminals" start as children. Happy, perfect, undamaged children.
Instinctively we pump out children, wanted or not.
There is little thought or rational. It happens.
This presents a problem of supply and demand.
Many children fall through the cracks.
But...so as not to "spill a man's semen on the ground" this is acceptable?
What the hell kind of belief is that?
So I have lately come to wonder...Birth control.
Who can be against it?
There comes a time when you observe the "nature of the other sins" the group credited with holding back birth control is responsible for.
Genocide, witch burning, pedophilia.....Hummm?
What in Jesus's name could be their motives?
Standing in the way of even something as benign as birth control?...especially for the poor and destitute? even if they want it themselves?
Why say, "No. Your Father forbids it?"
What "father" would accept any measures that result in all these "loose" vulnerable and unwanted children?
For each unwanted child that grows up to overcome and survive adversity, there are 20 more who live lives of silent desperation, and another 20 who do not survive their childhood at all. Missing, murdered, otherwise dead.

This what you are going for?
We have enough soldiers.

reply to post by Evanescence

not too original, even the zealot said "it could have been the devil", anything other than Jesus right? - I know exactly what I've seen and heard and obviously these did too-

they said, “He is out of His mind.” the teachers of the law and scribes came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,”-Mark3.20

no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.-1Cor12

He told them this because they were saying, “He’s possessed by an evil spirit.”-Mark3

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice-27

suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus-Acts9

The LORD will cause His glorious voice to be heard-Is30.30

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son-Mark1

his Son.. the firstborn among many brethren.-Romans8

also seen an Angel that I would describe in appearance like these two scripts below, when I was @13-ish and the friend with me had too but only as it/him? was flying back

for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.-Matt28.2

the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above-Ex25

Explain this.

Why is it ok to kill a man or woman on the battlefield but not in the womb?

Why was it ok for God to kill unborn children in the womb and bring a flood and wipe mankind off the face of the earth.

Originally posted by favouriteslave
Explain this.

Why is it ok to kill a man or woman on the battlefield but not in the womb?

Why was it ok for God to kill unborn children in the womb and bring a flood and wipe mankind off the face of the earth.

1) Man or woman are too big to fit in any female's womb.

2) God condones slavery, genocide, racism in Christian doctrine, he goes one step further and asks Abraham to abort his child, not fetus, child. An unborn child is a fetus, the fetus is a collection of cells. People are more than happy to abort chicken offspring for a nice tasty breakfast meal. As far as they're concerned; it was never alive, not alive by its own means.

As far as the woman is concerned, it's her body, it's still attached to her body. It's different from aborting a baby that has been detached from the mother.

RisingPhoenix33says:

“To commit an abortion is a violation of the child's civil liberties in America. Everyone has the right to pursue LIFE, Liberty, and Happiness in America. How can someone deny a being life and claim it's morally and legally right. It isn't. It's against God's law as well as in complete violation of another American's civil liberties.”

****A fetus is NOT a child. The already born woman has the right to pursue LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS in AMERICA and the Right to Not be Used as an incubator by another entity. Some of us do not believe in God,, so you can leave that argument out.

Why don’t you volunteer to have the aborted fetus implanted into Your body which would surely satisfy you that the “child” gets its rights?

Jennybee 35, You should have your cat spayed so that she does not get pregnant. Failing that you can still have the job done when she is pregnant..

Rustani, explain this:

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

Apparetly God is not pro-life.

Jennybee 35, You should have your cat spayed so that she does not get pregnant. Failing that you can still have the job done when she is pregnant

reply to post by OhZone


I think these women should be spayed, as well. They have no more morals than an alley cat.

For all those who will cry "But what about rape and incest!?" here is a statistic for ya', one I've noticed no one has bothered to post thus far:

Indeed, in a 1987 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in which abortion patients were asked why they were having an abortion, only 1 percent of the 1,900 women questioned named rape or incest. And 95 percent of those who mentioned rape or incest named other reasons as well for deciding to abort, the institute said

source

So, it is a very miniscule percentage of women who are raped or sexually assaulted that require abortions. No, I didn't search for results about medically necessary abortions. My feeling on that percentage is that it is totally skewed by doctors like Tiller:

Last year, the Harvard-educated McHugh relayed that some women stated that their reasons for wanting a late-term abortion included "not being able to go to a rock concert." According to Dr. McHugh, Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions for "mostly social reasons."

source

And while that was speaking to late-term abortion, I can guess how few abortions are performed at ANY stage that are truly a threat to the mothers' life.

As far as the way God feels about it, I wouldn't even try to convince you to feel differently. Your mind is made up, and it's not my job to change it.

reply to post by OhZone


I brought valid arguments compared to your strawman arguments. Bring merit to debate with me.

reply to post by jennybee35

Last year, the Harvard-educated McHugh relayed that some women stated that their reasons for wanting a late-term abortion included "not being able to go to a rock concert." According to Dr. McHugh, Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions for "mostly social reasons."

Late-term abortions are murder, and should not be allowed. The foetus in this stage is often not much different than any already born baby.

reply to post by Maslo


While I consider all abortion murder of an unborn human, I agree that partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous.

I have a question for pro-choice individuals: medical science has advanced to the point where "fetuses" as premature as 27 weeks gestation can be delivered, survive outside the womb and lead a normal life. Are these same "fetuses" still just a "mass of cells" until they reach that magical number of 40 weeks gestation, albeit outside the womb?

Would it be considered murder or just the mother's choice if she were to decide to end the life processes of that "fetus" delivered prematurely?

What is the difference between the rights of a fetus of 27 weeks in the womb and one delivered prematurely?

Wouldn't the same principals apply in each situation?

If an unborn "fetus" is only a parasitic mass of cells, how is a "mass of cells" prematurely delivered any more deserving of rights that aren't afforded to the fetus in the womb?

reply to post by Monts


Or it's because they think it's the best thing for them and everyone else involved. How do you know what the motivations of every woman who gets an abortion are? Just a sweeping generalization is all I see.

A human fetus is, essentially, a parasite for at least the first four or five months. If I get amoebic dysentery, is it wrong for me to want to want to not be a host to a parasite simply because it's "alive"?

reply to post by gnosticquasar


Let's face it, the people who are against abortion are pro-life pseudo-intellectuals incapable of a bit of common sense, reason and rationality.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
reply to post by Monts

 

Or it's because they think it's the best thing for them and everyone else involved. How do you know what the motivations of every woman who gets an abortion are? Just a sweeping generalization is all I see.

A human fetus is, essentially, a parasite for at least the first four or five months. If I get amoebic dysentery, is it wrong for me to want to want to not be a host to a parasite simply because it's "alive"?

First of all, whatever you want to call a fetus does not matter, because it is a human being. No amount of argument is going to change that. It has all the DNA and genes that make it human. Whether or not it is a person is whats up for debate, so comparing a fetus to dysentery is ridiculous.

Secondly, how selfish does your first statement sound to you? Killing a fetus because it's the best thing for the mother, her family, friends ect. ??? Why do you think that it is ok to kill a human being because its "for the best"? Would you be fine with killing a baby that is a few minutes old simply because it's "for the better"?

What is the difference between a fetus and a baby? 2 or 3 seconds?

reply to post by Monts


Then a seed is a flower, an egg is a baby chick.

Face it, the only reason the masters of your religion have declared abortions and condoms as sin is so that their followers are more likely to reproduce obedient offspring and spread Christianity like the virus that it is, the virus that has destroyed many lives and many societies and still does to this day.

I facepalm myself everytime i see your avatar.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by gnosticquasar

 

Let's face it, the people who are against abortion are pro-life pseudo-intellectuals incapable of a bit of common sense, reason and rationality.

So are you saying that I lack common sense because I am against ending the life of an unborn child?

Do I need "common sense" and "rationality" for me to be fine with ending someone's life?

If you would have ever studied any kind of ethical philosophy, you would find that the vast majority of people who study ethics for a living, regardless of religious belief, are lacking common sense, seeing as the vast majority believe abortion is immoral except in certain special cases.

reply to post by Monts


I really do love Christians, happy to opppose abortion but then more than happy to bring in the death penalty when it suits them. Not saying you do personally, but you can just see the hypocrisy unravel.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Monts

 

Then a seed is a flower, an egg is a baby chick.

edit on 24/11/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

If plants and animals were to have the same values and traits as humans do, then it would be morally wrong to kill either one.

But seeing as they don't have those traits and values, and aren't human, then it is regardless to bring them up in discussion, as the discussion is about humans, not plants and animals.

reply to post by Monts


Steping on bugs is morally wrong, the debate lies in how much. Culture has much to do with it. Too bad the anti-abortionists have been abandoned by the intellectuals.