Abortion is morally WRONG

reply to post by jennybee35


I don't understand why anyone even brings up religions, unless the person arguing is using their religion as their defense... like saying "Abortion is wrong because God says its wrong".

I don't see how being anti-abortion has anything to religion more than any other stance on any moral issue.
Just because your position reflects the same views of a particular religion does not mean that you are a part of that religion, or even believe in God.

As many Atheists as Christians display christian traits, like humbleness, gentleness, righteousness, ect., but that does not mean they are a Christian.
Like i've said before, I know an Atheists who could be called an "extreme" anti-abortionist. How does having that view make you a Christian?

I do hope that your arguments are answered jennybee, as they are good ones indeed

reply to post by Monts

What do you consider a human being to be? The way I see it, is that as soon as conception occurs, that pile of cells has the exact same amount of genes as you and I, and therefore has just as much of a future as you or I. A better argument would be to argue when that human being becomes a "person".

Genes are just a bunch of chemicals on a string, thats not important. Function of a nervous system is what is important.

Definition of a being from wiki:

Being (i.e. be+-ing, by synecdoche), is an English word used for conceptualizing subjective aspects fundamental to the self —related to and somewhat interchangeable with terms like "existence" and "living". In its objective usage —as in "a being," or "[a] human being" —it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience) such that transcend that of mere organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").

en.wikipedia.org...

what about severely mentally retarded people?

They are still sentient, so they should be protected.

People in a vegetative state?

Depends on the state of their nervous system. If there is a chance for them to wake up again (the mind is still there), then they need to be protected. If there is not, then no. People after brain death are routinely disconnected from life support, even if their empty bodies could live on life support for a long time.

People who are unconscious?

They are sentient beings, they are just "paused" for a while. All the ideas, memories, thoughts are still there, encoded in their neurons.

And the fetus is not simply a system that has a "potential" to develop into a sentient being... it is without any doubt going to develop into a sentient being unless there are problems or complications. There is no "potential" to discuss when it comes to a fetus. As long something is going to develop into a sentient being, why should that thing have any less right to a future of being sentient? Simply because it is not "old enough"? It doesn't matter whether it is 2 weeks, 2 months, 9 months, or 2 years old, that human being is going to have a human life in its future.

Potential or not, it is not enough to be able to develop into sentient being in the future. You have to be one to be worth protecting, IMHO.

Isn't it ironic that we are so hell bent on no abortion and life is sacred etc, yet where is the equivalent drive for the people dying right now? To sickness, economic inequality, religion, wars...

All life it meant to be. Meaning, if that child was meant to be born, it would be born.

Perhaps that soul wanted to experience an abortion? Perhaps the soul decided not to incarnate?

In the ancient history, the newborn was given to the elders to educate and teach as they had the life experience. These days a child can have a chile

There's far too many dumb-asses in the world as it is. Most of the people getting accidentally pregnant, ARE dumb-asses, who will in turn raise another little dumb-ass into the world, and we don't need any more of them. I encourage abortion for the most part. The trailer-trash hicks are pumpin' out puppies are a far greater rate than those who are intelligent, and to me that's a problem.

reply to post by Jack Squat


That's by far the most epic response in support of abortion i have ever seen xD

...............And i love it

reply to post by Monts


They bring religion onto it as a defense mechanism. Have you not noticed as soon as they can pin you down as a "Christian" nothing you say is valid anymore, because as one genius puts it:

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

the people who are against abortion are pro-life pseudo-intellectuals incapable of a bit of common sense, reason and rationality

Good argument. Valid reasoning, obviously.
Too bad that reasoning hasn't been used to answer my questions.

reply to post by Maslo


But isn't it the codes in our genes what makes us humans?
Aren't those genes the things that cause us to become sentient in the first place?

Again, I think that the fetus is human... but I suppose not a "sentient" one by your standards, let alone a "person".

But shouldn't a non-sentient with a definitive sentient future have the same rights as a fully sentient being?

If fact, the way I see it, the reason we see murder as wrong is because it eliminates one's future. In fact, the only time killing a sentient being seems ok is either when that being has no future, or is threatening the future of others. What makes people most upset about murder is the ending of one's future- the person, had they not been murdered, would still be alive and living a life.

How does a non-sentient fetus' future differ in any way from our own?
As soon as conception occurs (assuming nature doesn't end it, or someone aborts it), that little ball of cells is going to end up becoming a birthed baby that no one would even think twice about killing. It has a future just as important, if not more important, than our own.

No matter how you view sentience, by aborting a fetus at any stage in development, you are ending a human life and the future that was going to go along with it.

Originally posted by Jack Squat
There's far too many dumb-asses in the world as it is. Most of the people getting accidentally pregnant, ARE dumb-asses, who will in turn raise another little dumb-ass into the world, and we don't need any more of them. I encourage abortion for the most part. The trailer-trash hicks are pumpin' out puppies are a far greater rate than those who are intelligent, and to me that's a problem.

Well I guess according to your logic, sir, we should have an international dumb-ass test and kill anyone who doesn't pass it.

In fact, your statement seems very similar to one made by once of your fellow eugenicists 70 years who then actually did try and rid the world of whom he thought were "dumb-asses".

reply to post by Jack Squat


And aren't the "dumb-asses" the ones you have a problem with?

An unborn baby, according to your logic, isn't a dumb-ass until it is birthed and raised by its "trailer-trash hicks".

So why kill the babies and not the "dumb-asses"?

reply to post by jennybee35


Sure, "defence mechanism" - i like it.

Any person who is open to just a small ammount of reason and logic can see the benefit of abortion in some cases. To be a pro-lifer is just to ignore the argument, just to say "lalalalalal". They don't care that the child may have a bad life, or be sent to foster parents leaving the mother in guilt. It is the be against the choice of the women. I won't stand for it, religious or not.

And i'm sorry.... just there seems to be a correlation between people who can't think critically and who are against abortion and those who are in support of religion.

reply to post by Monts


You're seriously asking that question?

Again, i'll ask you my simple question.

Do you believe it is right or ethical for a woman NOT to abort a child that she knows is going to have an awful life and that she doesn't really want, or a pain that she doesn't want to undergo?

Personally i think it's wrong. the woman should have the choice? Your stance is to disagree, please tell me why in this situation.

All those that are Anti children (pro choice for those who do not understand) Are born and alive.

Morals are absolute, people with lust believe in no absolutes.

Killing some one is murder that is a moral no one here is going to say different or you are liar to yourself and humanity. Because the media and many believe something is ok now to do that was morally unjust yesterday does not mean it is so.

reply to post by Monts


No. Murder IS wrong. I also don't agree with abortion after the first trimester (or whatever), but a baby is better off not being born than being raised by a 17 year old (dumb-ass) single mother who spends her time texting her equally retarded friends about what happened on Jersey Shore last night.

And you can encourage adoption all you want (I myself would adopt before having one of my own), but the fact is, stupid people don't make smart decisions.


As for "why kill the baby and not the dumb-asses?" ...because ending a life is far worse than ending a non-life.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Very true, definitely agree. mothers body mothers choice.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Haha epic, what about the things that God states in the old testament. To enslave foreigners, natives. To treat women as inferior, to mutilate the genitals of children.

Just because the bible or God condones genocide doesn't make it right.

We would still be opressing homosexuals, women and blacks in our western countries if the word of God was absolute. I just love hearing this nonsense.

Originally posted by Jack Squat
reply to post by Monts

 

And you can encourage adoption all you want (I myself would adopt before having one of my own), but the fact is, stupid people don't make smart decisions.

So why should an innocent baby have to pay with their life for someone not making a smart decision?
Innocent people die all the time from the reckless actions of others, but no killing is more preventable than abortion. Like you said, a baby can simply be adopted, so why on earth kill it?

I'm a little disappointed in some here that are questioning the intelligence of others just because they don't fall in line with their point of view. Not you Monts, logic, nice.

I'm pro-life and I'm NOT religious. That is part of MY morals. That's the thing about morals, they are your own. How you come by them is another question. I also don't diss those that are pro-choice. That's THEIR morals. If we can't see past that, why are we even talking about this? Verbal masturbation?

We all know abortion is legal to fulfill the liberals sick fantasy of over population control works and it works like a charm.

reply to post by Monts


I can answer why, child birth is painful and the mother risks bleeding out, complications, post birth complications, stretch marks, spinal problems, blood problems, its costly to give birth and pay for prenatal care. Oh and some women, young ones, face getting kicked out of a parents house. There is always a reason behind a woman's choice to get an abortion its ignorant to think otherwise.

reply to post by Monts


What about rape victims?
What about where the child will likely be born with major complications?
What about when a 13 year old gets pregnant because she was coached in to an unlawful act?
What about when people can not afford to look after a child - yes it is their fault to start with no one is denying that but is it right to bring a child in to the world you can not afford to feed, is it right to then just adopt a child out when their are already children needing to be homed?
What about when the father has just died and you are no longer in a position to bring up a child as you are suffering metal depression as well a huge financial change?
What about when your family has strict beliefs and in some countries may kill you or outcast you?

My point is everyone has different circumstances your blanket statement that it is morally wrong is what I consider highly arrogant. Granted, way to many abortions take place but for us to judge others circumstances is wrong - what is easy for one person could end in total breakdown for another, this is why it must be an individuals choice - ideally it should be a couples in a perfect world but thats another post - they are the ones that live with the decision.