Abortion is morally WRONG

reply to post by TSAisaSCAM

I know where you're coming from, since attempted this also without even knowing if the child was mine or not though realize it very well could have been and at the time really had no knowledge to reason with anyway and along with the other problems at the time it all quickly reached an overwhelming point of absolute guilt/fear that I just wanted to end dealing with and thankful it did'nt happen considering the voice and eternal information I now believe or know amongst other things but forgiveness is the ultimate winner

here are just a few bits of info I find related to that forgiveness-

whoever follows righteousness and mercy finds life-Prov21

Mercy triumphs over judgment.-Jas2

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.-Hebrews8

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.-John10

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth-Rom9

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.-8

found this article interesting

Why, after over twenty years of legal abortion, do Americans--including young women for whom abortion has always been legal--still have a negative moral view of abortion?

The answer to this question is the same at it was two decades ago. In 1971, the editors of California Medicine wrote in support of legalized abortion, but noted that the moral view underlying this change would only slowly be adopted.

Since the old [Judeo-Christian] ethic [of the sanctity of life] has not yet been fully displaced [by the new ethic which places relative rather than absolute value on human lives] it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected...

Many of these women still desire their babies even at the time of the abortion, but are aborting only because they feel forced to do so by others or by circumstances. Indeed, of women who experience post-abortion problems, over 80 percent say they would have carried to term under better circumstances or with the support of loved ones, over 60 percent report having felt "forced" to have the abortion by others or circumstances, and approximately 40 percent were still hoping to discover some alternative to abortion when going for counseling at the abortion clinic. www.abortionfacts.com...

the story of David and Bathsheba is somewhat related also with an ultimate merciful ending in 2Samuel11

reply to post by stellify


in the one of the funniest concluding post remarks here on ATS I've ever read-

"BITE ME"

that said I can't help but think of these-
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.-Jn6

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.-Luke9

For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.-Gal6

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.-Gal3

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by stellify

 

in the one of the funniest concluding post remarks here on ATS I've ever read-

"BITE ME"

that said I can't help but think of these-
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.-Jn6

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.-Luke9

For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.-Gal6

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.-Gal3

edit on 8-12-2010 by Rustami because: (no reason given)

HA HA HA - you're back...and you're still unenlightened.

I am so 'friending' you right now.

I have missed you.

But I do think abortion for the wrong reasons is morally wrong - whim, etc.

Abortion for the right reasons is morally right.

Simplistic. Yes.

Rustami - if I had had an abortion...would I be smited?

reply to post by Monts


Another over-simplification I think. Have you any idea of the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage? 40% of all conceptions will end, particularly in the first trimester, which is why so many women will not actually announce a pregnancy until at least 12-13 weeks. Then of course there is late term miscarriage and still birth miscarriage statistics

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that every conception should have the right to be born, because a large percentage of them won't even get past the first couple of months...And of course it cannot be determined at the point of conception as to whether the embryo will be viable and continue of not. That of course makes me wonder if there are women who have elected to have an abortion who perhaps need not have bothered as "nature" would have taken its course anyway?

No, OP, what's wrong is men thinking they can impose the tenets of their imaginary religions to deny women of autonomy. Your "philosophy" is misogynist, i.e. the type of thinking you're engaging is hate mongering.

---

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Monts

 

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that every conception should have the right to be born, because a large percentage of them won't even get past the first couple of months...And of course it cannot be determined at the point of conception as to whether the embryo will be viable and continue of not. That of course makes me wonder if there are women who have elected to have an abortion who perhaps need not have bothered as "nature" would have taken its course anyway?

This viewpoint is completely flawed.

Of course miscarriages happen, but what do they have to do with abortion? If you are giving miscarriages as a reason to validate abortions, then you could say that a murderer who killed a 20 year old man should get away with it if he could prove that the man was going to die a few months later.

You could say someone with a bad driving record is 40% likely to die in a car accident, so would it be better to kill them off?

We have no control over "nature", and "nature" in itself is completely unpredictable. When conception occurs, there is no way on earth you will be able to predict with 100% probability that a miscarriage will occur, just as you can't predict with 100% probability that it will die in childbirth, or die in a hurricane, or die of old age.

The point is that you don't take nature into your own hands, and you can't use nature as an excuse for ending a human life with future value.

Even if a pregnancy had a 95% chance of ending in a miscarriage, is that number good enough to end its life? It still has a 5% chance to live a full and completely normal life.

If you were in a hospitable bed at the age of 16, and told that you had a 5% chance of survival, would you allow them to kill you because you are using up valuable hospital equipment and its more likely than not you will die, even though there is a chance you could live out the rest of your life?

Originally posted by thunderlady
No, OP, what's wrong is men thinking they can impose the tenets of their imaginary religions to deny women of autonomy. Your "philosophy" is misogynist, i.e. the type of thinking you're engaging is hate mongering.

When on earth have I ever used religion in my argument? How do you even know I am a man? In case you didn't know, there are just as many, if not more women who are pro-life as men.

My only tools have been rational and ethical thought.

I don't see any rational reason as to why taking away an unborn's life is ok while taking a birthed life is not.
They are both lives, and if you call me a "hate-mogerer" for trying to defend the lives of the innocent, then you may as well call every single freedom fighter that has ever lived a hate mongerer.

reply to post by Monts

You can't just isolate the fetus as being a "thing"- it is a HUMAN BEING, right from conception. It has the exact same amount of genes as anyone in the entire world, regardless of age (excluding genetic defects such as down syndrome), and will have a physical future of being birthed, growing up, becoming an adult, and then dying of old age assuming that their lives aren't ended prematurely by any other cause.

This is the important point- as soon as conception occurs, that ball of cells has a FUTURE VALUE- i.e., it has a life to live out- the same value that anyone here has, regardless of age. In fact, the loss of future value is why so many deaths and murders are seen as tragic- "he was so young", "she had her life set out for her", "how are her kids going to feel growing up without a mother" are all statements that are commonly heard when someone dies young- all referring to the loss of future value

The text in bold is what I was referring to! Your claim that an embryo is a human being from conception, that has a physical future, being born, growing up etc is what is flawed, seeing as 40% of embyros will never reach the stage of being born.

www.antiabortionsigns.com...

Sadly, in at least one documented case, an 18-year-old committed suicide three days after having a suction abortion because of guilt feelings over having "killed her baby." Later examination of the clinic's records revealed that she had not actually been pregnant..

Sometimes a post-abortion suicide attempt is an impulsive act of despair. For example, 18-year-old "Susan" writes: "Two days after the abortion I wrote a suicide note to my parents and boyfriend. I just couldn't fathom how I could possibly live with the knowledge of what I had done. I killed my own baby! I went down to the basement and figured out how to shoot my father's pistol. Hysterical and crying I put the barrel of the gun into my mouth. All of a sudden I heard someone upstairs. For some reason my father had stopped by to pick up something. I stopped what I was doing and went upstairs. He saw that I was upset and asked me if I wanted to have lunch with him at noon. I felt I at least owed him lunch. By the time lunch was over I was too scared to do it." www.abortionfacts.com...

A woman shall compass a man.-Jer31

If one part suffers, every part suffers with it-Corinthians

In her newspaper, The Revolution, Anthony (or a colleague who signed "A"[6]) wrote in 1869 about the subject of abortion, arguing that "We want prevention, not merely punishment" and asserting that focusing solely on passing an anti-abortion law would "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains."[7] This piece in The Revolution continued:

“ Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime. en.wikipedia.org...

A professor at the UCLA Medical School presented the following case history to his students: A woman who suffers from tuberculosis is pregnant. Her husband has syphilis. There are three children in the family. One is blind, another deaf, and the other suffers from tuberculosis. Yet another child died in infancy. Under the circumstances, most of the students recommended an abortion. They were then informed by their Professor: “Congratulations, you’ve just killed Beethoven!”

CONSIDER SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT STATISTICS RELATING TO ABORTION:

Abortion is not the “safe procedure” its advocates claim it to be. More mothers die from the complications of legal abortions each year than died from illegal abortions in all previous years.

In many areas of our country abortions actually outnumber live births.

1,500,000 to 2,000,000 babies are aborted annually.

98% of abortions are for reasons other than rape, incest, or the mother’s life.

40% of abortions are performed on women who have aborted other babies previously.

One third of abortions are performed on teenagers without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
The heart of an unborn baby begins to beat at 18 days after conception.

2 million American couples are waiting to adopt babies. www.jesus-is-savior.com...

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”-Luke1

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer-1John3

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.-Matt5

Perhaps one reason for the strong abortion/suicide link exists in the fact that in many ways abortion is like suicide. A person who threatens suicide is actually crying out for help. So are women who contemplate abortion. Both are in a state of despair. Both are lonely. Both feel faced by insurmountable odds.

Some "right-to-die" groups argue that we should legalize suicide and even create suicide clinics where facilitators would ease people through their suicide decisions. If we did so, there would be no shortage of desperate people willing to exercise their "freedom to choose." Promised a "quick, easy and painless" solution to their problems, suicide rates would skyrocket just as abortion rates did in the 1970's.

Like the suicide clinics described above, abortion clinics also exploit desperate people. They promise to release clients from the darkness of their despair. They appeal to our consumer society's demand for instant solutions to all our problems. They pose as places of compassion, but they are actually reaping huge profits through the harvest of the lonely, frightened, and confused people who are "unwanted" by society. In place of life, they offer the "compassion" of death.

Granting the wish for suicide or abortion is not an aid to desperate people. It is abandonment. It is a false compassion that protects us from getting entangled in the "personal problems" of others. It is "cheap love." www.abortionfacts.com...

Like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit,
Like a youthful wife when you were refused-Is54

Having examined the important biblical and medical facts, we are now in a better position to face the practical questions of decision making on abortion. When, if ever, would abortion be ethically justified for the Christian?..A Christian answer will involve the more basic question of the personal status of the unborn child: Is the unborn a potential or an actual human being? It is not difficult to imagine how the hardship to the woman might outweigh the value of a merely potential life and therefore justify abortion. But if the newly conceived life is an actual human being, that would take precedence over the possible hardship and inconvenience to the woman, and abortion would not be an option. I am convinced that the biblical and medical evidence favors the latter view. Since there is no clear biblical evidence that the developing child is less than a person, the Christian's decision must presume the personhood of the developing human life. The Christian may rest assured that even in the most tragic circumstances God can sovereignly bring good out of evil and cause blessing to his people www.abortionfacts.com...

This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain

reply to post by Rustami

This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

So your religion is correct? everyone else's is false, and thus it's followers are "sinners"

Get real please. Thanks. I'm done here, i can't take more stupidity.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


This is why I stopped posting here really its hard to argue with the religious they have a tendency to only see that they are right and no one else has a possibility to be right, and everyone should be like them. I see that some may feel its wrong but others don't if they are okay with that choice let them make it.

reply to post by Xiamara


Yeah, i couldn't agree more.

It's almost impossible to debate a "Deist" - They believe in a divine creator, it's still faith but they don't claim to know what "God" wants, what his desires are.

It would be unreasonable of me to say that a supreme being didn't create the universe, but it's even more unreasonable to say that your religion best describes the being that we can't prove exist.

A Theist is arrogant enough to claim to know what God wants, and based on what? Doctrine written by man.

It's a great sadness to me that this arrogance and stupidity still carries on to this day.

Peace be with you, carry on fighting the good fight.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


True true. People need to step away from their books and make a logical decision based off facts in the real world and present day. Not from a book written years and years and years ago. Doctors don't use text books from the 1900's to make logical diagnoses. Why should we base our views on science by an out dated piece of literature.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Not a theologian by a long ways but let me take a crack at this.........
As a "Theist", that is one who believes in God, I guess the question I have for those who don't is: "What is your source of truth?" Your own flawed and finite mind's ability to draw conclusions? Lots of problems with that premise.
Christians (Theists to you), acknowlege the existence of God, our creator and I personally do not want a God that I can wrap my little brain around, understand his motives and reasons. A child doesn't understand the reasons that a parent does things either. Their mind isn't able to grasp it yet and neither is ours when it comes to the reasons why God acts or fails to act the way we think he should. I believe there will be a lot of surprised atheists the other side of the grave.

reply to post by exnavyvp


In response to you as an atheist I say, should you be right I'll bring a beach towel, bikini and tanning oil and have a lovely vacation in hell beats all them rules in heaven.

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Monts

 

Your claim that an embryo is a human being from conception, that has a physical future, being born, growing up etc is what is flawed, seeing as 40% of embyros will never reach the stage of being born.

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to argue here.

Just because 40% of embryos never reach the stage of being born, how does this keep them from being human? Even if they end up dying by natural causes, they are still have the exact same 46 chromosomes you and I have. Is that not what makes a human, and not something else?

Basing the concept of being "human" as a being the chance of being born doesn't really make sense to me, as rarely, if ever are such classifications ever based upon chances such as those.

40% or more of children in the world will never reach the stage of adulthood. Does that not make them human?

Perhaps you are trying to argue that fetuses are not considered human beings until they reach a certain developmental stage or are born?

As a response to the majority of the posts on this page...

Why are people bringing religion and God into this debate?

Never once in my OP did I talk about "God" being the source of morals or the reason why abortion is morally wrong. There people, from all different walks of life- from Buddhists, to Christians, to Jews, and to Atheists and Agnostics who all take there own stand on whether or not abortion is moral; whether it is or not.

You can't bring God into any rational debate about moral righteousness, as in the end it will just be "Well its right because God told me its right".

Just like when people say "The TSA can touch my junk because the government says its right"

Or when one boy tells another "Lets play with daddy's gun, the tv says its alright".

It just doesn't work.

So lets leave religion out of this.

Abortion is, according to the Superior Spirits, a heinous crime. Killing a child inside the mom’s belly is a murder. A mother or whoever it is will commit a crime whenever they take a child’s life before its birth, because it would stop the spirit who would reincarnate to pass through the various probations for his own development. It has become scientific proved that human life begins from the moment of conception. From the moment of conception, the spirit designated to inhabit a given body is united to that body by a fluidic link, which becomes closer and closer up to the instant of birth; the cry then uttered by the infant announces that he is numbered among the living. Every transgression of the law of God is a crime. The mother, or any other, who takes
the life of an unborn child, is necessarily criminal; for, by so doing, a soul is prevented from undergoing the trial of which the body thus destroyed was to have been the Instrument. Three mistakes can be pointed out in criminal abortion. What are they?
First: to stop the spirit to reincarnate, it means, to progress.
Second: to reject a son who maybe represents the tool that God gave to parents in order to help them progress, through taking care, resigning, worrying about the kid.
Third: not complying with the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and in this case also an act of cowardice, since the Spirit is helpless.
Criminal abortion is the denial of love. Overwhelm the future life, full of hope; prevent the soul from coming back to our world. It denies the Spirit the chance to readjust represents, in any place, situation and time; this is a heinous crime, with lasting and Painful consequences for the human psyche.

reply to post by Monts


Similarly your argument is also flawed, I was simply opposing your view that EVERY conception will be born, that's simply not true. Another point, and I would rarely ever bring this into a debate, but I do think it's relevant here, I see that you are 19. Firstly, are you male or female? Can I ask how many children you have? Can I ask if you are responsible for your own rent/mortgage, utility bills etc? Although this may seem an irrelevant question, and normally it would be, but in this case, where you are advocating that any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, particularly if she is on her own or if the "father" has abandoned her, should carry her baby to term (unless of course she falls into the 40% miscarriage bracket of course!) and either look after it herself or give it up for adoption, despite the fact that by this point, she will probably have lost her job, and as such be behind with rent/mortgage etc and of course if she has other children will be forcing them into a situation where they will all be homeless, not to mention the potential health issues with pregnancy as well, but sorry, I'm just not sure that a 19 yr old can fully comprehend the harsh reality of the situation.

My viewpoint comes as a 43 yr old, female divorcee, with a daughter only 3 yrs younger than you, who has carried the full burden, single-handedly of paying rent, utlilities, childcare etc and can appreciate that the somewhat "rose-tinted" view of pro-lifers bears little resemblence to the harsh reality of life. We are all human, and yes, we can sometimes make mistakes, and my question is why should a woman have to pay for a mistake, created by two people, which can also have far reaching consequences, far beyond the supposed "rights" of an embryo. Why should children who have already been born potentially suffer? And what about the child who is going to be born if the mother becomes penniless and homeless...Adoption you will say, and then of course that child grows up and has a right to know about their birth parents...How will they feel then?

It is a complex and difficult subject, but I really feel that the ardent "pro-life" approach is singularly unhelpful to the people that matter most, the mother and the (potential and already existing) child(ren)