Is Abortion wrong?

Abortion doesn't end a pregnancy, it just makes someone the mother of a dead baby.

Viktyr Korimir said:

DemonMyst said:

-- You can't call abortion murder.. If you are going to let it die after it is born.. That is murder..

Click to expand...

Why? What is the difference between a child the day before it is born and the day after, that makes the death of one criminal and the other merely unfortunate?

Click to expand...

Simple answer - varying degrees of rights. The closer a baby comes to being able to support itself outside the womb then the more rights it gains which is why an early first trimester baby has less rights in comparison to the mother vs a late third trimester baby's rights in comparison to its mother.

friday said:

Abortion doesn't end a pregnancy, it just makes someone the mother of a dead baby.

Click to expand...

The pregnancy is still ended.

friday said:

Abortion doesn't end a pregnancy, it just makes someone the mother of a dead baby.

Click to expand...

I assume that in order to mandate that the grander society to meet or exceed your moral compass - that you and other pro-lifers would be willing to not just support a new law that gives the unborn full rights under the Constitution, but would also be willing to ensure that all unwanted babies born, who would otherwise not be, will be provided full protections of wanted children, which means NECESSARY safety and general welfare such as food, housing, clothing, etc. Right?

Can you please not allude to or raise the blame of humanity not taking appropriate sexual responsibility. That's not a possible reality.

lewstherin said:

yes. legality. i've already been over the "legality" of dehumanizing a certain segment of the population
for reasons of convenience. it was done with the blacks during slavery in america and with the jews
in nazi germany. these people were defined legally sub-human, as has been the unborn child in
contemporary times. legality.

Click to expand...

well let me know when legality CHANGES and Im glad to see you still ignored the responsibility part and your examples and how absurd they are. LMAO Ill be waiting for you to honestly address any of those issues or to continue to deflect its very humorous

Centrist77 said:

well let me know when legality CHANGES and Im glad to see you still ignored the responsibility part and your examples and how absurd they are. LMAO Ill be waiting for you to honestly address any of those issues or to continue to deflect its very humorous

Click to expand...

i haven't ignored $h!t on the "responsibility" issue. roe v wade renders the woman solely responsible, in regards
to the pregnancy. you're the one who constantly deflects in every thread you're in.

friday said:

Abortion doesn't end a pregnancy, it just makes someone the mother of a dead baby.

Click to expand...

Way to insult all the mothers who lost their dreams due to miscarriages and their children to still births, not to mention SIDS and all that follows.

MistressNomad said:

Suddenly not human? It never was. Back in "the old days," even an infant wasn't a human. They didn't even get names until they had survived for a month or two after birth. It's even in the Bible, which anti-choicers love to use. There's no "suddenly," and our ancestors had good reasons for thinking that way - an infant is not self-aware, and is completely helpless and vulnerable to everything. Human infants are pre-mature compared to most mammals. We've actually gotten a lot kinder. Now infanticide is illegal - even late-term abortion is illegal, since the fetus can feel pain and live outside the womb.

You have a justification for every type of violence except the violence against something that isn't even alive - a fetus.

War is avoidable, and kills tons of civilians. Capital punishment isn't justice, it's just government-sanctioned murder, which in turn makes the society think murder is ok rather than detering it, AND they sometimes murder the wrong person. Torture is a lousy interrogation method in addition to its general cruelty.

It's just amazing how you can look at unjust violence against genuine human beings, often innocent, and see no problem at all. In those cases, you think humans in their violence are infallible and an eye for an eye renders you just, not blind.

But then you look at a sack of cells swirling around in a transparent membrance that's vaguely mammal-shaped and rail about how we're "killing babies." Oh brother.

Click to expand...

MistressNomad,

Yes, suddenly. You may call them sacks of cells, but I call them human, as countless photos of aborted fetuses will attest. The left’s support for abortion has become so strong, that even late term abortion was practiced for a while. You seem to acknowledge the cruelty of abortion, as per your statement that we’ve actually gotten a lot kinder. That statement of yours seems to suggest that abortion was less than kind.

But I think I’m misjudging you. I think that you are truly a compassionate person.

You’re absolutely correct. All war is avoidable. What we should NOT do when we’re attacked is fight back. Let’s show compassion towards the enemy. Unfortunately, the enemy won’t love us any better for it, and it may prompt more attacks. Thousands of those civilians that you were afraid would get killed, would still get killed…just over on this side. Why don’t we just lay down our arms, and let the enemy come in and take over, shall we?

Why don’t we ban capital punishment, and show compassion towards murderers. They may have just killed one victim, or slaughtered many victims, but what does that matter? That doesn’t mean we should victimize them, does it? No, murderers have rights too, don’t they? Let’s screw the families of their victims. Lets shut our ears to their wailing over the loss of loved ones. Who cares about them anyway?

There’s just one little downside to this. If murder touches your family, like the murder of your parents, or your kids, and you thirst for justice, just bite down on that emotion and remember that state sanctioned murder is wrong.

And if we capture an enemy soldier, and he knows of an impending attack against one of our major cities, in which thousands are expected to die, let’s not “torture” him at all. Let’s just show compassion, and maybe out of the goodness of his heart, he will give us the details (or spit us in the eye). Let’s allow him to keep his secrets and hope for the best.

Just one thing though. When the attack eventually happens, and thousands of people die, let’s not tell the American people that we could have prevented it because we had somebody in our custody that had the information. The American people just wouldn’t understand. After all, it’s more important to show compassion than to apply enhanced interrogation techniques, and make that poor terrorist uncomfortable.

But show compassion to the hundreds of thousands of unacknowledged babies that are sucked out of their mothers’ wombs, that would never realize their potential, or ever make important contributions to our society?

Don’t be silly.

Just remember one thing. Of all the non-humans that we kill through abortion, we kill thousands of potentially devoted leftists, liberals, socialists, gays, abortion rights activists, feminists, welfare and food stamp recipients, union organizers, community organizers, radicals, revolutionaries, and other empty young minds just waiting for a proper dose of good old leftist indoctrination.

You’re shooting yourselves in the foot.

BDBoop said:

Way to insult all the mothers who lost their dreams due to miscarriages and their children to still births, not to mention SIDS and all that follows.

Click to expand...

how did he insult them? i've known quite a few women whom were devastated by a miscarriage, including my sister.
she understood she was the mother of a dead baby, which is why the BABY, not the fetus, received a name and an
actual grave which has flowers placed on it annually.

lewstherin said:

i haven't ignored $h!t on the "responsibility" issue. roe v wade renders the woman solely responsible, in regards
to the pregnancy. you're the one who constantly deflects in every thread you're in.

Click to expand...

If you say so but you definitely did the proof is back in the thread. A poster said abortion could be argued the responsible thing and you compared to killing a baby by leaving it in a dumpsters and chopping of a daughters head for having sex.

Thats how you ignored it by two asinine unsupportable clams that make no sense and you cant back up.

Sorry I stayed right on topic while your just throwing **** at the wall and hoping something sticks, ill GLADLY let you challenge me to ANY deflection you falsely accused me of LMAO. PLEASE SO ME AN EXAMPLE OF ME DEFLECTING FROM A POINT "I" MADE

id love to see it!!!! LMAO
Is it fun to lie?:lamo

RamFel said:

-- You may call them sacks of cells, but I call them human --

Click to expand...

The issue for me has never been what to call them. I'll happily acknowledge that abortion destroys a human life because the issue isn't what we call it but whether it is right to bring another human into this world when there may be no support for that life or that life is not going to receive appropriate care or may add to the burden of a family struggling to make ends meet.

The day there are guarantees that all children that would have been aborted would recieve appropriate care, not face young life in care homes or full medical treatment for a potentially threatening condition will be the day I consider saying there may be better options than abortion.

However the main problem still remains that it simply comes down to a mother's body and her wishes and rights in comparison (see above reply to Korimir) to the rights of her unborn human child. That cannot be changed.

Centrist77 said:

If you say so but you definitely did the proof is back in the thread. A poster said abortion could be argued the responsible thing and you compared to killing a baby by leaving it in a dumpsters and chopping of a daughters head for having sex.

Thats how you ignored it by two asinine unsupportable clams that make no sense and you cant back up.

Sorry I stayed right on topic while your just throwing **** at the wall and hoping something sticks, ill GLADLY let you challenge me to ANY deflection you falsely accused me of LMAO. PLEASE SO ME AN EXAMPLE OF ME DEFLECTING FROM A POINT "I" MADE

id love to see it!!!! LMAO
Is it fun to lie?:lamo

Click to expand...

i stayed on topic as well. YOU brought up legality. i responded. that's not a deflection. sorry.
and all your little emoticons aren't going to change the FACT that the deflections are yours alone.

This was to FRIDAY, but an answer from anyone who isn't pro-choice will work... Just asking...

Removable Mind to Friday said:

I assume that in order to mandate that the grander society is to meet or exceed your moral compass "regarding abortion" - that you and other pro-lifers would be willing to not just support a new law that gives the unborn full rights under the Constitution, but would also be willing to ensure that all unwanted babies born, who would otherwise not be, will be provided full protections of wanted children, which means NECESSARY safety and general welfare such as food, housing, clothing, etc. Right?

Can you please not allude to or raise the blame of humanity not taking appropriate sexual responsibility. That's not a possible reality.

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

This was to FRIDAY, but an answer from anyone who isn't pro-choice will work... Just asking...

Click to expand...

i'll answer. my sister had to pay $30,000 to adopt a kid from guatemala, because the waiting lists for adoptions in this country
are years long. so don't tell me these "unwanted children" aren't wanted by someone out there who is completely able to provide
for all their needs, because i know better.

lewstherin said:

i'll answer. my sister had to pay $30,000 to adopt a kid from guatemala, because the waiting lists for adoptions in this country
are years long. so don't tell me these "unwanted children" aren't wanted by someone out there who is completely able to provide
for all their needs, because i know better.

Click to expand...

Why would she do that? Your sister is another example of what's wrong with the pro-life model.




3/4 million kids in the system. Only 60 thousand adopted.

If pro-lifers really cared it about the unborn...then we wouldn't see the numbers above...because the unborn is eventually BORN. Then they have no more meaning to pro-lifers.

Cherry picking kids is how it's always been. Can't find the "perfect" kid in the U.S....run to another country.

Sad, very, very sad.

Your Star said:

You have no idea about my personal beliefs, so please stop attributing your thoughts about things unto me. And you do have a responsibility for the pregnancy you caused.

Click to expand...

Im curious. If you believe men have a responsibility because they "caused" a pregnancy... do you believe a man should have say so if a woman wants to have an abortion??? Could a man say...NO, have the baby and I will raise and be responsible for it. If a man were to say that, would the woman still have a right to go have an abortion against his wishes???

BamaBrat said:

Im curious. If you believe men have a responsibility because they "caused" a pregnancy... do you believe a man should have say so if a woman wants to have an abortion??? Could a man say...NO, have the baby and I will raise and be responsible for it. If a man were to say that, would the woman still have a right to go have an abortion against his wishes???

Click to expand...

I don't believe it factors into the majority of the cases. Most men, if they do want the pregnancy, don't want the full responsibility. Nor would I think he should have it. I would expect the shoe to be on the other foot, with visitation and child support.

Removable Mind said:

Why would she do that? Your sister is another example of what's wrong with the pro-life model.

3/4 million kids in the system. Only 60 thousand adopted.

If pro-lifers really cared it about the unborn...then we wouldn't see the numbers above...because the unborn is eventually BORN. Then they have no more meaning to pro-lifers.

Cherry picking kids is how it's always been. Can't find the "perfect" kid in the U.S....run to another country.

Sad, very, very sad.

Click to expand...

these aren't babies. you've been twisting the issue since you began.
1st, you tried to limit the options to an "choose A or B" scenario.
then you want to introduce these foster care problem children into
the scenario. kids whom are snatched by cps for abuse issues
into the scenario to prove point completely irrelevant to what you're
original point was. the point is BABIES, or as you might refer to them..
......"born parasites upon society".

BamaBrat said:

Im curious. If you believe men have a responsibility because they "caused" a pregnancy... do you believe a man should have say so if a woman wants to have an abortion??? Could a man say...NO, have the baby and I will raise and be responsible for it. If a man were to say that, would the woman still have a right to go have an abortion against his wishes???

Click to expand...

Which also brings things up on the flip side. If a woman can have an abortion because she can't afford the child, isn't mentally ready for a child, or will have her life style changed by a child then why can't a man abort his right to parenthood? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy for these reasons then why can't a father? It's illogical and sexist as things exist on the law currently.

digsbe said:

Which also brings things up on the flip side. If a woman can have an abortion because she can't afford the child, isn't mentally ready for a child, or will have her life style changed by a child then why can't a man abort his right to parenthood? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy for these reasons then why can't a father? It's illogical and sexist as things exist on the law currently.

Click to expand...

That I can agree with.

lewstherin said:

these aren't babies. you've been twisting the issue since you began.
1st, you tried to limit the options to an "choose A or B" scenario.
then you want to introduce these foster care problem children into
the scenario. kids whom are snatched by cps for abuse issues
into the scenario to prove point completely irrelevant to what you're
original point was. the point is BABIES, or as you might refer to them..
......"born parasites upon society".

Click to expand...

What is relevant is that tens of thousand are in the system because pro-lifers won't take responsibility for children after their born. There are plenty of babies who available through the state systems. But their not the right color, they don't come from specific types of families.

Bottom line: Pro-lifers want unborn to have full rights...and after their born...who cares it's somebody elses responsibility. That's where we're at.

digsbe said:

Which also brings things up on the flip side. If a woman can have an abortion because she can't afford the child, isn't mentally ready for a child, or will have her life style changed by a child then why can't a man abort his right to parenthood? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy for these reasons then why can't a father? It's illogical and sexist as things exist on the law currently.

Click to expand...

i agree. Takes two to tango, two should be in decision making process. I also agree with you about cases or rape and the morning after pill.

BDBoop... I think you are correct, it doesnt involve a lot of cases. But it is there. I pesonally know of two women who have had abortions behind their SO's backs after the man telling them they wanted the child.

Removable Mind said:

What is relevant is that tens of thousand are in the system because pro-lifers won't take responsibility for children after their born. There are plenty of babies who available through the state systems. But their not the right color, they don't come from specific types of families.

Bottom line: Pro-lifers want unborn to have full rights...and after their born...who cares it's somebody elses responsibility. That's where we're at.

Click to expand...

This is a straw man. You can't say that all the children in the system are due to pro-life people choosing not to abort and placing their kids up. Regardless, this logic does not dismantle the pro-life argument that the unborn are human beings worthy of a right to their lives that should not be infringed upon. Regardless, many would state that the root of the "problem" is the sexual irresponsibility of adults that leads to pregnancy. Sex is where the "problem" starts, not at pregnancy.

Regardless, if you are going to argue that problems arise from not killing an unborn child and that the answer is to kill them this can bring up and interesting argument. It's undeniable that from the time of fertilization that a new individual human life is created. Are you saying that it's perfectly moral to say that we should kill these human lives because they may grow up "in the system?" Then would it be also logical to preform "post birth" abortions on kids in the system? Life begins at conception, this is where a new human is formed. This is where the pro-life position argues against abortion. By that logic it would be ok to kill the poor and needy people who are already in the system because it is justified to do so before they are born. If you are going to attack the pro-life argument attack it where we make our beliefs, not by tossing around illogical straw men that does not touch on pro-life arguments or philosophy.

Removable Mind said:

What is relevant is that tens of thousand are in the system because pro-lifers won't take responsibility for children after their born. There are plenty of babies who available through the state systems. But their not the right color, they don't come from specific types of families.

Bottom line: Pro-lifers want unborn to have full rights...and after their born...who cares it's somebody elses responsibility. That's where we're at.

Click to expand...

funny....but you just criticized my sister for adopting a "baby of color". now you wanna throw in the race card?
you just keep twisting your little plot to the point it's now beyond recognition. nice try, though. i always appreciate
a good attempt at playing the race card when all else fails.

lewstherin said:

funny....but you just criticized my sister for adopting a "baby of color". now you wanna throw in the race card?
you just keep twisting your little plot to the point it's now beyond recognition. nice try, though. i always appreciate
a good attempt at playing the race card when all else fails.

Click to expand...

I don't know your sister. Your the one playing the race game. All babies are of color!

The fact remains. People who want to abolish abortions and give the unborn (at any stage of development) full legal right - but once a child is outside the womb don't want to accept responsibility for any "unwanted" babies. Babies that would have been aborted and won't be because of the laws are UNWANTED. Pro-lifers don't want to be involved in the lives of children after they are born. What part of "unwanted" is so hard to understand?

Millions of kids are reported as having been abused each years. Nearly a million are in the system...including babies. Why are conservative elected politicians in state and federal working diligently to remove social programs that DIRECTLY affect the health and welfare of innocent children. And guess what? These same politicians are trying to have abortion made illegal. How do you explain that?

BamaBrat said:

i agree. Takes two to tango, two should be in decision making process. I also agree with you about cases or rape and the morning after pill.

BDBoop... I think you are correct, it doesnt involve a lot of cases. But it is there. I pesonally know of two women who have had abortions behind their SO's backs after the man telling them they wanted the child.

Click to expand...

I did that myself. But he didn't just want the child, he wanted me. And he didn't propose until I said I was pregnant. In my defense, I was 19. I don't know how many men would actually walk away with the baby, no visitation, no child support, no contact. Simply by virtue of being male, he'd have a better shot at a decent paying job, so maybe being a single dad wouldn't be quite as painful as being a single mom - or maybe it would.