Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

reply to post by Sunlionspirit

I repeat I repeat and I repeat ..... because it seems to be oh so very very difficult for the anti-abortion people to understand just a little bit of reason, logical and not emotional thinking

Yeah...I think you failed mightily on that no emotional thinking bit.


This was probably the biggest emotional rant in this thread.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Then finally justify human equality using only biology and logic, without resorting to moral statements. Why are all people of equal importance for humanity? I does not logically follow from the laws of biology and evolution.

So you are saying all people aren't equal???

Could you give us your elitist definitions of which people are worth more than others?

Not all groups are of the same importance for mankind. If you destroy one group which was of little benefit or even detrimental for mankind, and in addition its resources greatly benefit other group that contributes a lot to mankind, it was evolutionary advanageous for humanity in net effect.

Oh wow...nevermind my earlier questions...you clearly answered it.

Who gets to determine which "group" of people are important and which aren't? Who gets to make that decision?

You see, this is the end point of pro-choicers thinking...they get to decide who is worty of life or death.


I hate bringing up Hitler...but this is exactly what he did with the Jews. Just a historical reference for you.

reply to post by MindSpin


No, I my opinion is people are equal, certainly at least in basic human rights, but I have this opinion because of my morality. It cannot be arrived to without morals, using only logic and biology. Gorman is saying morality is useless, and human equality can somehow be derived without morals, using only simple biology. Thats why I am playing devils advocate here, showing that using just biology and logic one can justify human inequality and even genocide, if one does not include any morals into the argument.

So again, the above statements are NOT my opinions on how we should act. (they may be logically true, but I refuse to act according to them because it would be contrary to my morality)

reply to post by Maslo


Morals only need to come into place if we start deciding that some human life isn't as important as others...then we are forced to use morals. Which is what is happening with abortion...some have decided that humans that are in the early stages of development are not important...so not important that women are allowed to kill them.


Now if we just go with the viewpoint of that ALL human life is equal and worthy of protection...then we don't need any morals to make decisions like who is able to be killed and not. All we need to do is use science to determine when a human life begins.

Our position remains simple...biology defines life...we believe all human life has the right to live. Simple.

reply to post by MindSpin


"All human life is equal and worthy of protection" is itself a moral statement. And thus cannot be derived from simple biology, like Gorman is saying. Just like "All sentient beings are worthy of protection" is a moral statement. You can only use biology to determine beginning of human life (conception), or beginning of sentience (appearance of brain waves), after you decided which from those two moral statements do you adhere to, but you cannot use simple biology to determine which of them is better or more moral.

I just keep reading this indirectly from some members:

"I just can't keep my draws on and besides I see nothing wrong with doing so"

Well sooner or later you're gonna end up pregnant. Most of the women are not raped so an easy way to avoid abortion is to keep your damn draws on. Mind over matter. Or sterilize yourself.....Period. I'm ready for round two of my grilling.

Originally posted by Gorman91
A society must not allow actions to go on without consequences. . . If people think they can go around and do what they want without consequences then they grow up on a flawed system of logic.

So if I injure myself for engaging in an activity which has risks (sport, driving a car etc.) I am not allowed to seek medical attention because "I deserve it and knew the risks".

Maybe I should never leave the house then.

Originally posted by Gorman91
This isn't morality. This is logic.

It is your morality than zygote embryo and fetuses should have rights no one born has.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Support for a child begins at conception and ends when the child leaves the parent. Once that life is formed, yes, the state does have a right to say that you have to take care of it or give it up. You cannot kill it.

I don't see pro-lifers protesting outside IVF clinics. But when they have an opportunity to shout at a woman walking to an abortion clinic they're all over that.

Originally posted by Gorman91
You have to either use protection to prevent it, or you give it up. . . Do one, the other, or both. You can't kill your mistakes if the result is life.

Emergency contraception and abortion is perfectly legal last time I checked.

Not everyone sees "sex = babies" as black as white as you.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You may want to re-read my comment...because I clearly say I am NOT talking about sex.

Neither was I. . . so what were you talking about?

Originally posted by MindSpin
It only needs a suitable environment...as some have said before...in the future there will be no need for the women for the fetus to develop.

The only suitable environment for it to develop is a woman. It cannot develop "alone".

Artficial wombs don't exist and have nothing to do with abortion since there are no competing rights.

Originally posted by MindSpin
As far as me refering to it developing into a human...when I'm speaking with people who's position is that it is not human...I have to dumb down the terms so they realize what I'm talking about.

Nice dodge and nice attack too. I don't remember saying a zygote doesn't have human DNA and thus isn't human.

Maybe you should actually be clear about what you type instead of correcting your responses post-hoc when you're called up on them.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I would never participate in IVF and I think in it's current state it is as bad as abortion. Once they can perfect the science to where they only need to fertilize one egg and implant it successfully...then fine..go ahead. They should of never begin with IVF without perfecting the science first.

If only pro-lifers actually protested IVF too. As it is they don't really care.

Originally posted by MindSpin
What rights do we want the unborn to have that the born don't???

No one born has the right to demand even a small drop of blood from someone else who doesn't want to give it.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You clearly have no clue what I am talking about..

Since you use vague terms selectively such as "Human" and "Alive" as qualifiers I am not surprised. I mean come now, sperm and egg cells are not alive?

Originally posted by MindSpin
LOL...nice dismissal.

So how does a 0.0001% difference matter in clones? It doesn't. "A clone is an exact genetic copy of a plant or animal. . . " I would like to this "genetic mutation argument" meaning they're not clones anymore. I suspect it's just something you just made up.

Originally posted by MindSpin
What don't you understand about a hostile environment.

That a zygote in a test tube is no more hostile environment than in a womans body. In fact a zygote can last much longer in a IVF clinic than in a woman, consider that most of them die via spontaneous abortion. In fact it's humanities biggest killer if we follow the pro-life philosophy.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Go live at the bottom of the ocean...see how long you live. Other forms of life do it...I guess that means all life should be able to.

The zygote in a woman travelling down the fallopian tube is not a different organism than one in an IVF clinic freezer. Come now, who is the one needing a biology lesson?

Originally posted by MindSpin
www.genome.gov...

That doesn't say human cells (sperm, skin, eggs. . ) are not human. And they can be cloned to make a person out of them.

Re-read about how you are using the term "human", a word which isn't as selective as you think:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MindSpin
Now...what is sperm.

A sperm is not a person. . . and neither is a zygote embryo or fetus.

"oh it has the right amount of chromosomes" is not a good answer to overturn Roe v Wade. Never was, probably never will be.

Originally posted by MindSpin
How many chromosomes does Human DNA have? 46

Human. . . a human. See this link again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MindSpin
Is human sperm alive...no...

Scientifically incorrect.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You guys are playing semantics.

The only person playing semantics is the one using the term "human" selectively for one thing and not another. Claiming sperm and egg cells are not alive, not "human", such as yourself can only do so with semantics. Words do not prove things. Words are abstractions.

As I have tried to show you in the link it is acceptable to say a sperm cell is human and alive.

My left arm is human, but not a human. My blood is human, but not a human. A HeLa cell culture is human, but not a human. A human zygote is human, but not a human. Etc.

What is the pro-life definition of a human being?

Anything with unique human DNA?. . . umm. . . that includes HeLa cultures. Then they start adding stipulations post hoc, as this post shows:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MindSpin
The embryo has distinct DNA from the mother...it is not just part of her body.

Yet her body is the thing that keeps it alive and it's entire existence is because of her. So no immediate obligations can be derived from it if it's unwanted.

It's best pro-lifers keep researching into artifical wombs so one day they can create as many babies as they please instead of treating people as if they are nothing more than incubators.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Some have decided that humans that are in the early stages of development are not important...

That includes pro-lifers since none of them protest outside IVF clinics.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Now if we just go with the viewpoint of that ALL human life is equal and worthy of protection. . .

Morality aside, that is not a small responcibility since spontaneous abortion would become humanities biggest killer.

Why should a brainless organism have the same rights (or more) as someone born? Because they have the same amount of chromosomes? That is a moral conclusion.

If more people actually started using common sense instead of thinking only about imposing their twisted morality on everyone else maybe the world would be a better place.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Our position remains simple...biology defines life...

Fair enough.

Such a black and white opinion shouldn't be imposed on everyone else though.

Roe v Wade - morality shouldn't be the sole basis of a law. And yes "DNA = person" is a moral statement.

Anti-abortionists' moral objection to abortion relies on the belief that the z/e/f is a person and should be offered legal protection. This position has consistently failed to win support and undermine the legal provision of abortion.

Roe wasn't based on whether the unborn are human or not.

Since "it is human argument" has consistently failed they then turn to other means to further their cause such as claiming alleged mental illness and other things into a legal strategy to undermine the provision of abortion..

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

Choice starts at sex.;.

And your point is?

Originally posted by Gorman91
If the choice was not made to, the life from it can't be legally defended.

Could you explain this, please? All I get right now is: "Choice starts at sex. If the choice (about sex) was not made, the life from it can't be legally defended." Is that about right? Of course I am confused about what life? If you make the choice not to have sex, no life created and then of course nothing to defend legally (in a court of law? ). qed

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

Not for murder.

What murder? The fetus in the wound? Also, are you a man or a woman? Abortion does not equal murder in my book. Period.

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Well then by that argument, I hope you don't masturbate, you are eliminating millions of potential citizens each and every time.

Ahem, did you not know that masturbation is a sin? I am agnostic of course, but there is that story about Onan and spilling his sperm on the ground instead of impregnating his dead brother's wife so that she may have descendants. I hope this does not go to much off topic. Mods do your thing.

reply to post by WalterRatlos


You're killing something with the same potential of any human of any age. Therefore, it's murder.

If rape, IE, no choice in sex, then you cannot say that a choice was made to have a child or to gamble with possibly having one.


You can say abortion is not murder. That doesn't change the biological fact that it is.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

You can say abortion is not murder. That doesn't change the biological fact that it is.

You are free to interpet abortion as murder, but it is important to note that murder is a legal term with a legal definition.

Abortion has never been murder under US law, not even prior to Roe v Wade. Even in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, it won't be then either.

reply to post by Gorman91

You can say abortion is not murder.

Abortion is killing, not murder. Murder is killing of human persons, or beings. Since embryo is not a being, only a life, killing it is not murder anymore than disconnecting vegetative brain dead patients or transplanting organs from biologically alive but legally dead humans.

reply to post by igor_ats


certainly it would be hard to persecute that which cannot be seen. But to openly do it is simply illogical.

Also, law is independent from scientific definition. And indeed, often flawed. i could hardly care what the law defines murder as when that same law once said a black man was not a full man.

reply to post by Maslo


Intent to end a life is murder. But your killing definition is an interesting spring on the norm. However. Killing is killing. And it is indeed wrong. At the very least the vegative person should be used in science or something. Perfect human test subjects really.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo

 

Intent to end a life is murder. But your killing definition is an interesting spring on the norm. However. Killing is killing. And it is indeed wrong. At the very least the vegative person should be used in science or something. Perfect human test subjects really.

I admit to being a mass murderer - by your definition.
Today I intend to swat 3 flies, bathe, swim in a chlorinated pool, use underarm deodorant, and swallow an antibiotic. I might even deflea the cat.

However I'd never use a vegetative person as a test subject for science.

I have been comatose and unable to respond in any way, but was still able to hear and feel.
There are others who have come out of comas and reported the same thing.

reply to post by Kailassa


Coma and vegative are not the same.


Those things are not human.

It absolutely saddens me that so many people don't see a baby as life just because they are still living inside the mother rather than outside. They still have a heart, and a brain, instincts, and they can feel. In fact, with all that we now know about the amazing journey of life as it begins until birth, it's amazing that abortion is even still an issue.

First, give this a chance. There are a series of videos that you can watch which show the development of a fetus in ways most of you have never seen before. It's an amazing documentary, very well done, and beautiful to watch. I can only assume that there are so many people out there who don't believe abortion is killing because they misunderstand the complexities of the fetus. They are our babies. They rely on us. We are throwing away life. You don't want to consider it murder? Ok. You have to admit that it is still throwing away a life. A life that could have grown up to be someone's mother, someone's friend, someone's life love. They could have been the next leader of their country, or a great explorer. They could have been another human life living on this planet, just like the rest of us.

(I hope I embedded this right.)

There are many more videos like this, at every stage available here: www.ehd.org...
Please at least watch these videos before you leave this thread still believing there is nothing wrong with abortion. Please.

If an aborted baby would not have been aborted, they would have been a living breathing person on this planet. Would killing that living breathing person be wrong? Yes. So it confuses me that killing them at this early stage in the great journey that is life, isn't wrong to so many people. They were cheated their chance at a life, something that some people seem to take for granted.

Just think, someone could have aborted you. I don't know about you, but if my mother would have chosen to abort me because she wasn't ready to be a mom, or just didn't want me for what ever reason, well, that would have been horrible. I try everyday to be the best person i can, and to give something of my self to the world every day. And to think that my daughter wouldn't have had a chance to be here either because I wouldn't have been here to have her..... It's not just that baby being aborted that's being cheated out of a life, but every person that would have been their offspring as well.


Now, my experience. It wasn't until my 30's that i decided I wanted a child. (Before that I was a proud member of the "child free" club.) The whole thing was planned out and i got pregnant on the first try. I was very in tune with my body and the life growing inside me. I took the time to savor every single moment of this experience. Most women don't get that chance. Life is so demanding these days. But I was lucky. Every day I played with my baby even though she was inside me. And around 20 weeks, when i felt her first kick, i started and interactive game with her. I would tap a part of my belly, and she would kick that spot. I read somewhere that they could do this with practice. I was intrigued. And yes, it worked! And believe me, to see the shock on everyone's faces when i showed this neat little trick to them was such a treat! Before I got pregnant, i was never pro life. Now, I can't imagine that I ever was. It's changed me so much. I feel so much regret and pain for these babies that never get their chance at life. I can feel my eyes swell up in tears just thinking about it. I wish humans would evolve enough to understand what a tragedy abortion is. But I know it's because people just don't understand that yes, this really is life. Just because they are inside the belly and not outside doesn't matter. They are still ALIVE! They are LIFE!