Do you think that abortion is murder?

Comments

• good answer

  • Report
  

  by hemiman on September 26th, 2006

• Even if you define a fetus as a person, that doesn't solve how to reconcile conflicts of the rights of the fetus (person) with the mother (person who also has rights).

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on October 9th, 2006

• Valid viewpoint, good answer. I disagree, but who am I to say?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006

• If you're sure the "person" comes into being when the egg is
  fertilized, why isn't it a person when the intent to fertilize is
  formed? Or when the egg divides the first time. Or when it reaches 3rd
  trimester? Or when the sperm's tail is completely inside? Or when the
  sperm first makes contact with the egg? What makes this particular bit
  of the process more absolute than all of the others? And by what common-sense criteria can a fertilized egg be called a person? Where exactly would it's "personality" be located? This is exactly what happens when humans attempt to absolutize their own concepts of reality -- paradoxes and nonsense result.

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on November 20th, 2006

• well, if both the "fetus" (latin for "unborn child") and mother have the same rights, then they both have the right to live as the minimum. and the convenience or comfort of one should not override the right to life of the other.

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 21st, 2008

• They will live long on the streets after mom and dad lose the house ;)
  Oh, and don't think that there are any public assistance programs that can help. They *used to* but they are now overextended, underfunded, and sen as milking off of the state in this modern era of Conservatism. More money to help accidental parents give birth to and raise healthy children in a heated shelter with adequate food, the less money that CEOs get to line their pockets with.
  .
  You also assume that rights ARE equal. False. They CANNOT be for reasons that a pro-lifer would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER even admit exist because they only ever look as the simplest possible viewpoint with ABSOLUTELY no consideration of ANY other fact or factor.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 21st, 2008

• oooook jerv. so in the first part you make a completely valid point that the govt is not providing for people who need it. ie, once you are alive, and have needs the govt should take care of you and not the already rich people. so, the matter is one of the govt not of the rights to life.
  the second "point" you made, s/EVER//gi, is more baby talk and blind bigotry than anything and wait, was there a point you were making?
  by the way, there is no such thing as "accidental" parents.. sex is meant as the natural method of procreation.. if people dont understand even this.. then wow.. liberals should stop talking about condoms so much and start saying "sex leads to pregnancy. its how it works" not to mention VD and so on.. there is no 100% safe method of having sex that will not lead to one or the other eventually. thats fact. why dont we teach that? oh right, cuz people are just animals who cant control their physical urges.. i forgot..

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 23rd, 2008

• I always thought that Conservatives were idealists.
  You just proved it.
  .
  That second part is personal experience; my own childhood and personal/family friends.
  .
  I guess that if a person has a tire blow out on their car causing them to crash and kill a person that you would call that PREMEDITATED murder?
  BTW - has EVERY sexual thing you've done in your life EVER resulted in a kid and/or an infection? Even the wet dreams? Or are you truly genderless?
  .
  As for your scaremonger assertion that sex ALWAYS leads to VD and/or pregnancy, you just proved your ignorance of medical science and statistics. That may be how it works where yuou come from, but in the REALLY REAL world where most of us humans live, that simply isn't true.
  Take your meds, get an education, take a look at reality, and THEN come on back here and lets see if you feel the same way once you leave your delusional fantasy world and join the rest of us.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 23rd, 2008

• well if the purpose of the existence of cars was that they blow out and kill someone and then you went and did that, but "safely", i would still say it was.. yeah.. since thats the whole point of it.. "but i was so careful!!" still.. you knew what it leads to..
  um, if you grab the word "sex" and refer to all sexual behavior by it, as opposed to the act of sex, then you can turn my comment into pretty much anything. i didnt say sexual behavior, i said sex.
  i also didnt said it "ALWAYS" leads to vd or pregnancy.. read again, and THEN judge all you want, but judge correctly.
  .
  i guess when you can turn peoples comments into anything you want, then yeah, i can see how your delusional fantasy might appear to be everyone's delusional fantasy.

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 25th, 2008

• "there is no 100% safe method of having sex that will not lead to one or the other eventually. thats fact. " - I think that's pretty cut and dried.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 25th, 2008

• sorry, forgot the word "effective" after 100%.. i was talking about there not being a 100% reliable method to prevent these things. in other words you can never be 100% certain. know what i mean now?

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 25th, 2008

• By that logic there is no 100% effective method to ensure that you won't be smashed in the head by a falling meteorite while banging your wife either so I guess that that is *statistically* valid, no matter how improbable.
  Then again, you're talking to a monogamous guy with a vasectomy so my odds of wither are a bit lower than average to begin with.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 25th, 2008

• has that ever happened? if it has never happened then we have a 100% success rate.. right?
  by the way, ive heard of even guys with vasectomies impregnating women.. so there goes that argument..

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 26th, 2008

• I don't even know where to *begin* on that one. I am going to assume that you have never studied statistics and probability. Look up "Monte Carlo Fallacy" and then tell me what you think.
  .
  Ever hear of an Elephant Rock? You carry it to keep elephants away. How do you know it's working? You don't see any elephants here, do you? 100% success!
  .
  I didn't say my odds were zero, merely considerably lower than average.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 26th, 2008

• dood, my point is that you are arguing something i didnt say or at least you made no effort to understand what i was saying and proceeded to argue away at something i wasnt saying. this you might know as the straw-man.. can you at LEAST try to understand what i am saying?
  ill try again:
  there is no method you can apply when trying to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex that can give you a 100% guarantee of effectiveness.
  .
  ok? do we agree now?

  • Report
  

  by insaner on October 4th, 2008

• That is a *much* more accurate statement. Had you said it that way to begin with, I never would have gone off.
  .
  I have a wild hair when it comes to probabilities and the common use of the "Monte Carlo fallacy".

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on October 4th, 2008

• yeah, but for exactly that reason you have to go to much greater lengths to understand what people are saying, and not just run off with whatever and rail on them.. we can have our disagreements, but let them be disagreements and not just you arguing against something i didnt say or mean.. right?

  • Report
  

  by insaner on October 4th, 2008

• I *think* I know what you're saying now.
  Miscommunications happen. I have many with my wife. They happen much more often when you deal with a more literal-minded person (like myself) who tends to be a little anal about being precise.
  .
  Google "Asperger"

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on October 5th, 2008

• you have asperger's? in any case, if you do, all the more reason not to go and rail on people until you actually fully understand what they are saying. make it a quest to understand, and not so much one to make others agree with you, or criticize their opinion.

  • Report
  

  by insaner on October 14th, 2008

• Look at all of the other halfwits around here (not just at AB, but in society at large) though.
  Look at them objectively.
  You'll find that I'm really no worse than them except that I am more likely to be tactlessly honest.
  .
  BTW - AS isn't any more of a real handicap than left-handedness. I may see things differently, but don't we all?
  You tell me to make it a quest to understand. I've done that for years. I've had to in order to function. Where is YOUR understanding?
  You seem to be trying hard to make me agree with you; hard enough to appear almost hypocritical by that statement. I doubt that was your intent, but....

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on October 14th, 2008

• i thought i was talking from the same side of the fence on this issue, since you brought it up as an excuse/explanation for how you were miscommunicating. i wasnt passing judgment, i was offering advice. sorry if it didnt come off as friendly, but we can agree i wasnt being mean.
  i might be trying really really hard to make people agree with me, especially if you realize that i do think abortion is murder (i lost the main thread of what you and i were talking about specifically since it was so long, sorry about that.. school and a broken computer got in the way) however i dont see how trying to get people to understand my position would make me hypocritical here

  • Report
  

  by insaner on December 2nd, 2008

• I agree that abortion is murder - i get the other arguements and i empathisize - i could just never kill a baby no matter how it was concieved

  • Report
  

  by Beckaa on March 11th, 2009

• But if you express your view that way ... "I could just never kill a baby...", you really *don't* get the other arguments, because the other arguments are "your conception of 'baby' is too simplistic".

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on March 12th, 2009

Comments

• I wish I could rate this- you raise some excellent points. It annoys me when people think simply illegalising abortion would make the world somehow better, without addressing the problems behind it.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2006

• If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions... and many women will die as a result. But killing adult women through bad policy is NOT murder so that's okay, apparently.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006

• As far as the US Constitution goes: Most state do treat women's bodies diferantly than men. In most places, for instance, a woman can not bare her breasts in public. This is not true in Santa Cruz, California, where I live. You will occastionally see women walking around bare-breasted. The city council decriminalized it.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 2nd, 2006

• As they should have. I don't know that the Constitution itself supports treating a woman's body differently than a man's...it is the laws that do that.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• The Constitution is oddly silent on the matter of breasts.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 3rd, 2006

• Yeah, and that is surprising considering it was written by men. ;)

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 4th, 2006

• No comment....*wow*

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• Great answer.

  • Report
  

  by Mini_kilt on November 20th, 2007

• Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on November 21st, 2007

• Nuanced answer. A simple yes or no, please. If abortion is not murder of an innocent child (in many cases in a brutal and cruel way), then define what abortion is.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on August 25th, 2008

• Biased comment. If you are not a wackjob sitting in a sniper stand outside of Planned Parenthood, then define what you are.
  .
  Abortion is a very nuanced subject.
  If you want to view it that simplistically then birth control is murder too and anybody who ever bought a box of condoms deserves execution; a common punishment for premeditated acts which result in loss of life.
  I could go on at length, but I somehow sense that any intelligence you may have is strait-jacketed by dogma that prohibits free thinking... or even thinking except to recite the party line.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 26th, 2008

• Ad-hominem attacks are not effective on me. Please just define what abortion is if it is not murder of innocent children, if you can.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on August 26th, 2008

• Abortion - Medical procedure performed to terminate a pregnancy.
  .
  For purposes of this conversation, let us consider the unborn to NOT be a child yet. If you wish to argue this point, then let's go elsewhere. That debate has been raging for a LLOOOOONNGG time and arguing it here would merely be a digression.
  .
  Since you SEEM to consider abortion murder AND are against nuances, I can only logically assume that you are against abortion even if it is deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Am I correct?
  If I am incorrect, then I must assume that either:
  1) You DO find nuances acceptable and thus are just being a hypocrite in complaining about nuances, or...
  2) Your assertion that Abortion is murder is wrong, or...
  3) Murder is acceptable to you, at least under certain circumstances

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 26th, 2008

• So far, I have yet to meet a logical, rational thinking pro-lifer that didn't at least have some form of nuance to their opinion. Are you the first? Would you blast THEM for being nuanced?
  .
  I merely want to see where you are coming from because what I've seen of you so far makes me shake my head and chuckle.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 26th, 2008

• Direct abortion is always murder of an innocent child.
  .
  In the case where a situation exists that is incompatible with human life, like an ectopic pregnancy, then the Mother should do what is natural to preserve her life. In this case, the abortion that often occurs is a tragic side effect of the Mother preserving her life and not the direct end intended.
  .
  Ectopic pregnancies occur at a rate of 19.7 per 1000 pregnancies. This does not account for the 50,000,000+ children murdered since 1973.
  .
  Your personal reaction to what I write is of no concern to me nor to the argument in general.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on August 31st, 2008

• Opinion, and one that is not universally shared. Until you are elected to run the Universe and be allowed to define everything irrefutably, I will disagree.
  .
  You call is tragic side effect, I call it a nuance. While you and I are actually mostly in agreement there, I still must take issue with you for being a hypocrite. Your own position is nuanced. How DARE you complain that another holds a nuanced opinion!
  .
  I think you and I agree that all non-life-threatening unwanted pregnancies would end in adoption. Unlike you though, I am a realist. You think outlawing abortion will end them? Phhht!
  You think even having the baby will go right? Well, "dumpster babies" are a minority too, but it has happened often enough (and likely far more than publicized) that it can't be disregarded.
  And what of those that will cause FAR more problems than they are worth. I'm not talking merely Downs Syndrome or crack babies either.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 31st, 2008

• Add in child abuse, poverty-induced malnutrition and lack of proper medical coverage, the drain on public assistance, etcetera, and you'll either admit that the world is FAR from ideal or that you are totally detached from reality.
  So tell me, are we merely on opposite ends of the "ideal versus real" spectrum, or do you fit the clinical definition of Schizophrenia?
  .
  No, I notice that you and your ilk generally disregard the positions of others anyways. You know best. You are all-wise and always right.
  Your reaction to what I write is of little concern to me except insofar as I am annoyed by your hypocrisy. All I really want is for you to admit that your position is nuanced as well.
  As for what I write not being a concern to the argument in general, it is as relevant as your assertion that Abortion IS murder. Are you invalidating your own argument?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 31st, 2008

• I would like the Roe v. Wade overturned and the issue put to the electorate on a state-by-state basis. Don't you think it is time the electorate got a say in the matter? 50,000,000+ of our fellow citizens have been butchered. For every three friends I have, I am supposed to have another, but that friend was exterminated before he was born, sacrificed at the altar of "choice".
  .
  My position is consistent. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil. It is murder of the innocent. I am sorry that you can not distinguish between a life saving operation with a tragic side effect and frivolous murder of the innocent. Maybe Mr. Obama will be elected and the war against the unborn can continue to be waged, and pro-abortion folks can kill all the babies they want.
  .
  I am not always right, but I do know how to make an argument and articulate a position without resorting to hyperbole and far-fetched, unreal examples.
  .
  You have the last word. Take care and God bless you and yours.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on September 1st, 2008

• I feel you are making a mistake by assuming "pro-choice" automatically means "pro-abortion, kill all babies and feast on their entrails". I personally interpret it as "if you believe abortion is murder then don't get one", but that is just me.
  .
  I don't know if you noticed or not, but I did state above that I am not entirely cool with abortion, mostly because MANY are unnecessary.
  We are not as far apart as you think.
  Besides, I think I pointed out the problems we'd face if our population were higher. bear in mind that the poor have more children than the rich; the most children are born to those least able to care for them.
  .
  My life has been full of hyperbole, and I like to think that my actual life isn't fiction as it would seriously make me question reality. What you call "unreal", I call "historical observation".
  .
  But I agree that neither of us will change the other's mind and would like to agree to disagree and walk away peaceably.
  Take care, Aldeberan

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on September 1st, 2008

• hooooly crap you type alot!

  • Report
  

  by supersai20 on December 22nd, 2008

• "Don't you think it is time the electorate got a say in the matter?" No, of course not. This is the same as I believe about same-sex marriage, voting, free speech, and other rights. Individual rights have never been put to legislative vote, they are reserved. The idea is to protect individual rights against the minority. Even if it were put to a vote, btw, abortion would be legal. Far less than half of the US support overturning Roe V. Wade.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 13th, 2009

• No body has a right to murder innocent children. Period.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on January 13th, 2009

• Alde - While I think it's safe to say that everybody agrees on that, whether a fetus can yet be considered a child, an independent life rather than a tumor growing within a woman's abdomen, is pretty much the core of the whole abortion debate.
  Your position is not the only valid one any more than there is only one true religion or political party. It's not invalid either, but I will go out on a limb here and guess that we all are pretty much decided on the issue and nothing either side says will get anybody to alter their views.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 13th, 2009

• If it the fetus is a tumor, then when precisely does it stop being a tumor? This question can't be answered by the pro-abortionists because they know this tumor premise is indefensible.
  .
  In this country, we error on the side of life in every other instance. Why not so with abortion? Largely because of the money the abortion industry makes by murdering children. And largely because of the contraceptive mentality and using abortion as secondary contraception so people can fool themselves into thinking they are free to act irresponsibly.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on January 13th, 2009

• Pro-abortionists? That is inflammatory as hell! Okay, show of hands; who here wants ALL pregnancies to be aborted? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
  .
  Define life.
  .
  An inert lump of undifferentiated cells is no different than the callus on my foot. A little thing with an independent heartbeat capable of surviving outside of the mother is alive. In between though... THAT is where the battle is.
  If you want to argue POTENTIAL life then answer me this; have you EVER masturbated or had a wet dream ? If so then I am hailing you in front of the judge for MASS murder. If you want to be an extremist then I will do so to in the opposite direction.
  My real goal here is to be the voice of reason though. I just want people to understand both sides even if they don't agree. However, that comment makes me think that you AND ALL OTHER PRO-LIFERS are unreasonable zealots.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 14th, 2009

• There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you go so far beyond anything I have ever heard from the pro-choice side that I may actually start advocating abortions for all merely to bring balance to the world and counter your zeal. Is that what you are after, or do you want people to act reasonably?
  Before hearing vitriol like yours, I was for all unwanted pregnancies ending in adoption. Thanks to you and people like you, I am drifting to the other side.
  Be proud of yourself.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 14th, 2009

• "No body has a right to murder innocent children. Period." Well, the problem we have here is definition. First of all, I do not think a lump of joined cells numbering in the hundreds is a child. Sorry. By legal definition, it isn't a person and never has been (see the history of abortion in the US covered in the Roe V. Wade decision). Murder is, by definition, unlawful killing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder Let me be clear, I'm not pro-abortion. I do not advocate abortion or requiring anyone to have one (the opposite of the pro-lifers). I recognize and support choice, and that a decision is best made by those in the situation in conjunction with medical personnel.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009

• "If it the fetus is a tumor, then when precisely does it stop being a tumor?" The definition of the point of viability is included in the Roe V. Wade decision, as is the legal allowance for limiting abortion procedures after the point of viability, SO LONG AS AN EXCEPTION IS MADE FOR THE HEALTH OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN. This last part seems to be a sticking point for many in the pro-life movement (and is why several so called partial birth abortion bans were struck down, because they didn't contain it as the Supreme Court clearly said they must). http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm I do not think the Supreme Court is out of line in considering the health of the woman. Do you?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009

• "Okay, show of hands; who here wants ALL pregnancies to be aborted?" Not me. I've not met anyone with this view.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009

• Let me quote Roe V. Wade for you: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 14th, 2009

• "Not me. I've not met anyone with this view." - Exactly my point, though according to many pro-lifers, ANYBODY who isn't on their side attributes that viewpoint to us pro-choicers.
  That sort of misuse/twisting of the language makes me wonder is pro-lifers are actually evil, selfish bastards or merely linguistically inept morons. Or maybe they are evil morons! Stupidity and moral corruption are not mutually exclusive.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 14th, 2009

• Agreed. I'd also like to know why, if a fetus is a child, you don't get to claim them as exceptions on your tax return and the census has never counted them. Why do people respond with a question about the number of children with, "2 and one on the way"? Why wouldn't it just be "3"?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on January 15th, 2009

• My question was: "If it the fetus is a tumor, then when precisely does it stop being a tumor?"
  .
  The answer is no where to be found in your sophistry. You have no answer...
  .
  Roe v. Wade establishes arbitrary definitions. It is not infallible nor is it scientific. Futher, the SCOTUS imposed this on the citizens. In the United States, judges don't legislate from the bench.
  .
  Roe v. Wade is not authentic law, and must be opposed.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on January 17th, 2009

• Too wordy for this space.
  .
  YOU have no answer either, other than dogma.
  .
  As do you.
  .
  It is as authentic as it gets. Just because it doesn't go along with YOUR beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make it invalid, and there are enough people FOR it that repealing it would be problematic at best.
  The Patriot Act is a more universal threat than Roe v. Wade.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 17th, 2009

• Now, if you want to get all high and mighty about life then you might want to check out the state of the world and ask whether things are all you make them out to be.
  Of course, I guess you have no problems with living in poverty with parents who resent your mere existence. I have to wonder also if you are as extreme as Sarah Palin; do you oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on January 17th, 2009

• Aldebaran if abortion is legal it is not murder as murder is the legal definition for the unlawful taking of a human life.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on July 7th, 2009

• It used to be legal to own slaves. Did that make slave owning authentic law? Of course not.
  .
  Just because something is called "legal" does not make it authentic law. The SCOTUS, which should not be legislating from the bench in the first place, makes tragic mistakes (see Dred Scot v. Sanford).
  .
  Abortion IS the unlawful taking of human life. That is the point. What crime does the unborn baby even stand accused of? None. Then why is the ultimate punishment that society can meet out to an individual given to the baby? An what about "cruel and unusual punishment"? When's the last time someone on death row had their brain sucked out or was poisoned with salt or was ripped limb from limb? The abortion industry's torture that I have described is truly barbaric. Wouldn't you agree? Do you want any child subjected to this hell?

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on July 12th, 2009

• Whether or not the unborn are considered human is largely a matter of religious/philosophical belief. Or are you saying that any belief system other than yours is invalid? Re-read the First Amendment before you answer that.
  You also overlook that there are *serious* restrictions on late-term abortions in most places, and those are usually only performed out of medical necessity. Therefore a good chunk of your last paragraph is irrelevant and borders on bullshit, though you are wound up and letting your emotions shut off your brain so I will overlook your little tantrum and hand you a hankie.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 12th, 2009

• Now, are you claiming to be the highest moral authority in the land?
  The ultimate arbiter of right and wrong?
  Are you claiming to be God?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 12th, 2009

• What are you talking about, authentic law? You can not decide for yourself whether a law is legal or not. If abortion is legal it is not the unlawful taking of a human life and therefore not murder. If owning slaves was legal then it is not unlawful. If you don't like the laws lobby for change. Who says it has to commit a crime? A virus doesn't commit a crime but I don't intend to allow one free rain of my body.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on July 12th, 2009

• Jerv, either the unborn baby in the womb is human or it is not. The objective reality is that the babe in the womb is human, and no amount of sophistry will refute this fact. And no amount of wanting something different is going to change the truth. Religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it. The unborn baby in human and innocent. Period. Also, since you mention Founding Documents, do the phrases "right to life" and "endowed by their Creator" appear verbatim? (P.S. Why do all of my questions go unanswered? Also, please look up the term "ad hominem attack" and learn about its consequences in a debate).
  .
  Ginger, authentic law is sometimes called the moral law. It is the law imprinted on your heart by the Creator. Every culture instinctively knows that certain things are wrong -- slavery, incest, and murder of the innocent are big examples. The irrefutable fact that I have laid out that people with a pro-abortion mindset can not or will not see, is that abortion is the murder of an innocent. 9 men legislating from the bench in 1973 and 50,000,000+ murders later will never efface this fact.

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on July 14th, 2009

• I do not have a creator and every human being has their own moral codes. Your so called 'authentic' law is nothing more than than your own personal moral codes. Every culture does not know those things are wrong at all or they wouldn't exist. I am not pro abortion, I have never and will never advocate that all women should have abortions. Abortion is not murder as murder is a legal term and therefore does not apply if abortion is legal. You can call it killing a life I have no problem with that but it is not murder.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on July 14th, 2009

• Huh?
  Your second sentence contradicts your first, which tells me before I read any further and without even remembering/rereading your past posts that you are utterly illogical.
  Your claim that religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it are so utterly false that I barely feel the desire to attempt to prove something so obvious, but I will.
   
  Basically, whether or not that unborn (insert pronoun here) is a human depends on what you consider "human". It also depends on morality, as does whether or not it should be preserved and allowed to grow. And no amount of wanting something different is going to change the truth.
   
  Admit it, you are arguing morality here.
  I find your references to "Authentic Law" pretty fucking funny too. I mean, I agree with you that there *ARE* certain things that are universally perceived as wrong, BUT ABORTION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS!!
  You say that the unborn is a human YET THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON!!
  And no amount of wanting something different is going to change the truth.
   
  I ask again, are you claiming to be GOD? If not, your opinion is no more valid than mine, and if so then you need psychiatric care.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 14th, 2009

• I have had this discussion with pro-lifers far more logical and reasonable than you and yet my position has not changed. The difference is that they at least gave the appearance of having a grasp of reality.
   
  As for your repeated claims of ad-hominem attacks, different people have different manners of speech, and mine tends to be a little snarky at times. Don't take it personally. Either deal with it, learn to cope, or STFU.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 14th, 2009

• Now let us back up for a second.
  First off, do you agree or disagree that "life is sacred" is a moral judgement?
  Second, do you believe that any code of morality that differs from yours has *any* validity at all?
   
  Your words here have pretty heavily implied that the answer to the second one is "no", but that is mere speculation based on observation and may not be true.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on July 14th, 2009

• Ginger, if you think that you willed yourself into existence, then I would suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help because you seem to be totally detached from reality.
  .
  jerv, all I can say to you is that I am glad for your sake that your mother didn't demonstrate the same hatred and coldness of heart that you display towards the unborn when you were growing inside of her.
  .
  God Bless You Both!

  • Report
  

  by Aldebaran on August 12th, 2009

• Nope, I think my parents had sex and I was the result, but they did not create me.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on August 12th, 2009

• Ald - My mother didn't have a choice, and if she did then I wouldn't be around to regret it.
  If you knew me better then you might understand a bit more. You seem to think that life is the greatest thing ever; the perfect gift. That is NOT an opinion I share, I merely make the most of what I have.
  I did that when I was thrown across the room and broke the sheetrock wall.
  I did that when I was picked on in school, something that many teens nowadays will commit suicide over.
  I am doing that now, being unemployed long enough to need to file on an extension of my benefits and enduring the abuse of those who feel I CHOSE to be unemployed.
   
  I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask for the life I have had. It happened (and is happening) so I make the best of it. Nothing more.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 12th, 2009

• I am the product of my environment. A little place I like to call "Reality" You might want to visit is sometime.
   
  I acknowledge the intent of your blessing and respect it, but I want you to respect AND UNDERSTAND where those of us with whom you disagree come from also.
  And my biggest quarrel is with those who seek to impose their version of righteousness into issues where the perception of right and wrong is not agreed on.
  Most sane humans admit that murder is wrong, with murder being defined as the unlawful taking of life. However, we don't all agree on what life is, which makes abortion so contentious an issue.
  Most humans agree that rape is also wrong, but is making a woman who is already scarred for life by a brutal assault have to drop out of the workforce for a while and endure 18 years of expenses any more humane? Having a constant reminder of that brutality in their face every day for the rest of their life? You are wiling to torture an adult in order to save a clump of cells that *might* become a serial killer or someone like me who doesn't share your appreciation of life?
   
  If so, you are narrow-minded and selfish.
  Don't forget than many people who HAVE had abortions are tortured by what might have been. Those that take such a decision lightly are types of people that are unbalanced in ways that make abortion irrelevant.
  Many of those that get abortions are seeing things in a more merciful manner; they do not want to bring an unwanted, unloved child into the world.
  I won't get into my own circumstances, but I *do* believe the world would've gone on just fine without me.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 12th, 2009

• Well put Jerv.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on August 12th, 2009

• "Ginger, if you think that you willed yourself into existence, then I would suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help because you seem to be totally detached from reality."
  
  Ald- in this same post you also said god bless you.
  
  If you think that a big man n the sky willed you into existence, then I would suggest you seek professional psychiatric help because you seem to be totally detached from reality.

  • Report
  

  by BooneLee on November 24th, 2009

• Rising, you talk about ethics. How about, is it ethical for a woman to have an abortion because it is inconvenient to her when she made the choice to perform an act, that without a condom, usually ends up in pregnancy. You bring up rape/incest, how about the fact that only 1% percent of abortions are done because of that. Why do women have abortions you ask, because they fear ridicule and taking responsibility for their actions. If abortion was illegal unless circumstances such as to protect the mothers life, rape/incest, or another good reason applied, maybe more women would stop giving their body to anyone and everyone, pregnancy rates might just go down, as would transmission of stds, and maybe just maybe, the overall moral fiber of society might just reach a higher standard than we see today. We give women the right to decide whether or not to have sex, and if they choose to without protection, why shouldn't they take responsibility?

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• DJ- I think you have a GRAVE misunderstanding about human nature and an even more egregious misunderstanding about American culture. Hell, we don't even want to teach teens sex-ed because of some mistaken notion that sex-ed will lead to promiscuity. Truth is that the lack of sex-ed leads to things like Bristol Palin; unwed teenage mothers!
  While I agree with your point about personal responsibility, I think you miss the point of the original question which is merely one of legality.
  However, if you want to stick with ethics, I want you to remember one simple thing:
  NOT EVERY HUMAN HAS THE SAME CODE OF ETHICS AS YOU DO!!!!!!!
   
  Once you accept that simple fact, things might become a little clearer to you... and, dare I say, you might have a more realistic view of the abortion issue.
   
  As for choice, remember that EVERY poor person CHOOSES to be poor. There are high-paying jobs EVERYWHERE so if you don't earn enough to buy insurance, a house, and still have enough left over to save for a decent retirement then it's entirely because you are lazy!
   
  I do not expect you to agree with me (I'd be disappointed if you did) but I DO want you to take a look at the facts, and to look at them objectively and logically, without hysteria, emotions, or a quest to impose your idea of morality.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009

• "...maybe just maybe, the overall moral fiber of society might just reach a higher standard than we see today." - Sarah Palin tried that. Why do you think she has a grandchild? If someone who is such a supporter of family values can't even control her own daughter, what chance do you think you have trying to control millions of total strangers?
  Be realistic, not idealistic.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009

• Although I deeply disagree with your views on abortion, I can safely say that you are very well spoken about your views. You are incredibly correct that lack of sex-ed leads to unwed teenage mothers, just as the D.A.R.E. program leads to drug addicts. Don't give people the information they need and shit happens. As far as ethics goes, it seems that in today's society, most people don't even know what their own ethics or moral beliefs are anymore, people just don't care. I'm not so sure I missed the original point, my comment is a response to the person in which I noted whom brought up more than just legality issues. Can't comment too much on anything Palin tried, think she is kind of a joke. Also, I'm not sure what realistic view on abortion I am supposed to have. In your response, leave out Palin, I want to hear about her just as much as I want to hear about Obama.

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• "I'm not sure what realistic view on abortion I am supposed to have."
  First off, there are some people that are so anti-abortion that they won't even allow it to save the life of the mother. I find that pretty unreasonable considering that the whole reason to be anti-abortion in the first place is the sanctity of life.
  Second, some people seem to assume that outlawing abortions will stop them entirely. Well, the activation process of Windows hasn't prevented bootleg copies, the law didn't keep some guy in a neighboring city from shooting four cops, and people were still getting drunk during Prohibition, so that should tell you how much bearing the legality has on whether or not it occurs, and it's unrealistic to think that a law will be a total panacea.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009

• Abortion was illegal many years ago and women went to back yard abortionists with coat hanger mentality and many of them died.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009

• Jerv, I believe in acceptions. Most abortions are done on women under the age of 25 and the top reason for abortion is because the child would be inconvenient. It is accentually now used as a form of birth control in a sense. Thats what I want to end. Ginger, you seem like a common pro-choice person who uses the same excuses over and over, backyard abortions did not happen constantly. Most people go straight for the "what if a woman is raped?" which occurs for only 1% of abortions. Regardless, I think we need to do something to stop all the random abortions that occur just because of sex crazed irresponsible women. I am not against protecting the mother's life, I'm not against helping rape/incest victims(I do believe there needs to be a time limit), and whatever good reason someone may have. We need to do more than just stop the bullshit abortions, such as, like Jerv mentioned, push sex-ed programs, give knowledge. Compromise can be pursued i'm sure.

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• I don't beleive I said they happened commonly, what I said was that at one time it was illegal and women went to back yard abortionists, are you trying to tell me they didn't? Wait, sex crazed irresponsible women? I suppose the mans penis was no where near her at the time. Of course education is needed, along with other things like free contraception, I have always said discussing abortion is like closing the stable door when the horse has already bolted.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009

• I know you didn't say it happened commonly but bringing it up in that manner seems to imply that thought. As well, I didn't say it didn't happen, I specifically said that it didn't happen constantly so that I wouldn't seem to imply that and no one could use that idea against me. As far as the man's penis, the woman generally has the final decision. When a woman says she is on birth control and a condom isn't needed we usually fall for it. I did and got lucky, I think. But the final responsibility rests on the woman, plain and simple. Free contraception is generally available at health departments, people just don't go get it. Should it be mailed to them?

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• Personally, I think people that lazy should be sterilized. If they can't be bothered with a little BC then chances are that they are not even close to being good parenting material.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 2nd, 2009

• Jarvis, I am not sure what your point over backyard abortionists was then. It is the womans responsibility? What about all the men who convince a woman not to use a condom because, well they don't like the feel, and if you really loved me. So the man is absolved of responsibility because she says she is on birth control? What a bunch of bullshit. Free contraception is not available at health clinics where I live. Uneducated is what I would call them Jerv, not necessarily lazy.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009

• Jerv, I don't know what BC is. And yes, it is the womans responsibility, as soon I read what you wrote, my wife chimed in to answer this for me. She agrees, it is the womans vagina, she decides what does or does not enter. Just as womEn give into peer pressure to have sex in the first place, they fall for that lame shit about the feel, or if you love me. Guys out there are trying to get what they want, and continue to do so to not have to wear a condom in some cases. But women have the CHOICE to have sex. It seems the only people who don't get the whole thing where woman actually have to have some responsibility are feminists. Seriously, how hard is that to understand, WOMEN NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. And yes Ginger, Jerv is right, they are lazy. And Ginger, what do you not understand about my point over backyard abortionists, you were the one that brought it up.

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• Men have the choice whether to have sex or not as well, they also have the choice to wear a condom or not. How irresponsible of them not to wear one when you consider the diseases out there. I never said women were not responsible, but men are equally responsible. My comment on backyard abortionists was in response to Jervios talking about pro life people thinking that outlawing it would stop it, I was pointing out that it had been outlawed and it didn't stop it. I am not sure why you even commented on it at all.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009

• This is the longest thread I've ever seen. DJ - Only an ignorant turd would compare slavery and abortion. Gingerminx - You're wasting your time, but you know that. Merry Christmas cat lover.

  • Report
  

  by evandad on December 2nd, 2009

• I guessed as much Evandad, why thank you :). Merry Christmas to you as well.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009

• What are you talking about evandad, I never brought up slavery. I was actually trying to have an intellectual conversation with Jerv, and everything was staying pretty respectful until your dumbass came in here. Even though Ginger falls very short of Jerv's intellect, the conversation still wasn't bad, thank both of you so much for ruining that. Apparently neither one of you can remain somewhat civil.

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• I apologize. It was Aldebaran who made that comparison. I attributed it to you because you were the last "no choice" responder in a very long thread. You're not a turd. Ignorant is still with the jury.

  • Report
  

  by evandad on December 2nd, 2009

• Thank you, but what do you mean by "no choice" responder?

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• Anti abortion

  • Report
  

  by evandad on December 2nd, 2009

• If you have read my posts you would see that I want compromise. I'm not an ignorant idealist. I just don't believe in handing out abortions left and right like another form of contraception to women who get pregnant and refuse to be responsible for their own actions. I can agree with rape/incest issues as well as safety for the mother. Read through and let me know what you think.

  • Report
  

  by Dirty-Jarvis on December 2nd, 2009

• I do not believe I was uncivil.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on December 2nd, 2009

• Congratulations! You have Broke A World Record! Most comments on a social networking statement!

  • Report
  

  by J.P113 on March 4th, 2011

Comments

• Good point, headspace.

  • Report
  

  by muguet on November 18th, 2006

• My parents never should have had children. Eighteen years of torture wasn't a fair trade for having a say now.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on November 18th, 2006

• 18 years after Roe v. Wade the national crime rate in the US dropped by 60%.
  

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on November 20th, 2006

• Had I and my brother been aborted, my MOTHER would probably be alive today to give her opinion. She committed suicide during post-pardum depression.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• I'm sorry to hear that, AntigoneRising. My condolences.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on December 2nd, 2006

• Thanks, Darkling.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• Wow, that's so sad, AntigoneRising. I'm sorry you feel as though your not being born might have saved your mother's life. That's a terrible burden. I don't mean to sound condescending or weird, either. It just makes me feel sad.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on December 19th, 2006

• Exactly! good answer. +

  • Report
  

  by tnobody on April 22nd, 2007

• headspace i was nearly aborted but instead was adopted. i still feel that abortion is acceptable. i could go into a whole list of arguements that people have already said but look at it this way
  
  if we outlaw abortion, how many girls are going to take a hanger and towel, go into their shower, and do it themselves?
  how many girls will go to back alley doctors and get infected and die themselves? have you ever noticed that everytime this country outlaws something, the use or participation of that something goes up?

  • Report
  

  by darkshepard666 on January 20th, 2008

• so does that mean we shouldnt have laws?

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 21st, 2008

• Love your answer!

  • Report
  

  by Beckaa on March 11th, 2009

• true . but do you agree with the age limitin england? we allow abortion up to 24 weeks, thats higher than any other countries. furthermore babies can survive at 21 weeks. dont you think its a little sick that in one part of the hospital (or clinic) we are aboring babies up to 24 weeks yet in another part of the hospital we are fighting hard and funding lots of money into saving premature babies, some as young as 21 weeks?. however im by no means saying abortion should be illegal but it should after 14 weeks max! (in the USA its 12) .

  • Report
  

  by someday on November 24th, 2009

Comments

• For the record I would have to disagree with this answer, but as you say its a personal issue and your opinion is just as valid as mine, I rated it useful.

  • Report
  

  by rincewind11189 on September 25th, 2006

• I completely agree with your answer.

  • Report
  

  by sunshiney on September 25th, 2006

• Thanks Rincewind11189. That is very big of you.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on September 25th, 2006

• Amazing to see civilized disagreement on this issue. Everyone on answerbag could learn something here. And good for you, darkling, for stating your belief even tho you knew it might not be in line with the majority of expressed opinions.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on September 29th, 2006

• Thanks Jodie44! Eh, someone has to come off like jerk :)

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on September 30th, 2006

• Good, calm, rational answer.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on October 9th, 2006

• Isn't any living thing just "a glob of cells"?

  • Report
  

  by Omegacrep on October 21st, 2006

• By my POV, the ability to stand alone from the mother elevates it from a glob of cells to a person. If I cut my finger off, it reverts back to a glob of cells because it can't live on its own. Argue semantics if you must, it's just my opinion.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on October 25th, 2006

• your explanation is circular. You say that 'potential isn't enough' to explain why it isn't alive. Your answer has to make the same assumptions that the question does, without giving any evidence to support those assumptions. Can you give any actual evidence that says the unborn baby is not human?

  • Report
  

  by smsedmc on November 20th, 2006

• smsedc... humans are not fetuses, and fetuses are not humans.

  • Report
  

  by Persky Bunkermeister on November 20th, 2006

• Good answer. Nowhere in reality are there sharp boundaries between entities. When
  does a tadpole become a frog? This is all a matter of humans defining
  boundaries with language and thought. Frog and tadpole are two aspects
  of the same thing -- and that thing has no name until we give it one.
  The same thing applies to fetus and human being: until we say where the
  line is, there is none. Your definition is reasonable, and as long as
  everyone understands that it is *we* who make that up, there's no real
  problem. It's when we start thinking that there's some absolute truth
  underlying our choice of boundary point that we get screwed up...

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on November 20th, 2006

• Smsedc - Genetically, it's human down to the sperm and egg. That doesn't make it a human being. I'm saying that if it can't stand alone from the mother, I don't consider it to be a person yet. It has the potential to become a person at a later time and, once it reaches that point, I don't believe it should be terminated. Seems simple enough to me. The other thing that seemed simple since it was mentioned several times is that this is a statement of opinion. I don't feel the need to back up my opinion with evidence. That's the beauty of opinions, they can be arbitrary and mercurial :)

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on November 20th, 2006

• Thanks, Stableboy. Interesting point about boundaries. It seems like a lot of the fuss stems from people trying to force their boundaries on others and not understanding how that other person reached their decision.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on November 20th, 2006

• In high school debate my conclusion was the same: until a decision is made and accepted about exactly when life begins (at conception, birth, or point baby can live independent of mom) the debate will rage on. I mostly agree with what's being said, but what if *we* don't make up where the line is and there IS a higher power that sets the boundary point--and we simply don't know it? (There are a lot of things we don't know about the human body and space.) Maybe we'll have to deal with the consequences of our earthly opinions/actions, maybe not. Like I said, I mostly agree, so I'm not passing judgment, but after observing the miracle of life I just can't bring myself to call a fetus a 'glob of cells'. WE could just as easily define life as cells that would grow into a human if untampered with in a natural environment (i.e. womb)? I'm not saying it's murder, but I think it's possible that there is some greater truth and we need to be careful what we accept until its known.

  • Report
  

  by Little Miss Dangerous on November 25th, 2006

• littlemissdangerous: If a higher power wants to set the boundary, that is her prerogative of course. But to not tell us exactly where that boundary lies lets us off the hook for knowing, doesn't it?

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on November 25th, 2006

• Littlemissdangerous, it is amazing the way life comes out of something so simple but it really does start out as a glob of cells that divide and divide again. As it grows and takes form, it starts looking more like what we expect to see. I'm willing to admit that I approach life more clinically than some but everyone has to live true to themselves. I refuse to cower from a decision because I have no way of knowing if some ephemeral being is pranking me by not telling me the rules.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on November 26th, 2006

• ......My only problem is that I see all of the view points..... All of them carry merit, But I dont agree with all of them.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• There is no good solution to this question. Any answer will upset someone and any legislation will be decried as harmful to one group or another. Just muddle through and make the decision that's right for you.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on December 5th, 2006

• I agree. well put.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on December 6th, 2006

• No problem. =^_^=

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• I agree. One thing to consider about that 'clump of cells' though, is that it is genetically unique. That exact combination of genes (as well as the various micro RNAs that tell the transcription and translation mechanisms what to do with those genes).

  • Report
  

  by science_geek on December 15th, 2006

• A'glob of cells?'How naive! We absolve our consciences by utilizing modern technologies: To wit, in the 1970's 'globs of cells' that weighed <16 ounces (for those of you in Ria Linda that's ONE pound) couldn't survive...Yesterday, a one pound 'glob of cells' was delivered successfully and that's because sophisticated technology has allowed the sustainment of life...
  It's life, stupid!

  • Report
  

  by Tuscan on December 20th, 2006

• Tuscan, you owe everyone on this thread an apology for the derogatory "Ria Linda" and "It's life, stupid!" comments. No one here will respect your POV when you fail to present it in a civilized and respectful manner. Crass comments like yours are not welcome on Answerbag. You want to tell us about current events? Fine. Write your own answer. Cite your source.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on December 20th, 2006

• Well put mommy!

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 20th, 2006

• I agree with Jodie, Tuscan: your "argument" is far from qualifying as reasoned or balanced -- it's basically snide and presumtuous. It's as if you thought that people on the other side of the argument would roll over and agree with you if you made the right kind of smirking expression mugging for the crowd. Folks here are actually quite a bit sharper than you're giving them credit for being.

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on May 12th, 2007

• Tuscan, I agree with Jodie44, as well. Your highly unbalanced soap box doesn't give you enough latitude to judge or insult others for their personal opinions. As far as I'm concerned, after a sperm meets an egg, anything at all can happen. There is NO guarantee that any zygote will ever survive the entire process. So, until it is actually born into the world, I do not consider it a life separate from the mother's. Your judgmental diatribe is as unwanted as it is unnecessary.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on March 15th, 2009

• Uh... Tuscan has not been seen since Dec. 2006 on this thread. I don't think you're going to hear from him again.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on March 19th, 2009

Comments

• didnt really answer the question

  • Report
  

  by hemiman on September 26th, 2006

• Hemiman, LF feels like there isn't a clearcut yes or no. I think that answers the question.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on September 26th, 2006

• why doesn't it answer the question? Not every question has a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 27th, 2006

• lady f, you are right, there are circumstances where it might be ok. I stand corrected. But please dont tell my girlfriend I said I was wrong. She would never let me forget it.

  • Report
  

  by hemiman on September 27th, 2006

• LOL! OK, I promise.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 28th, 2006

• Good statement of your opinion and as this question is specifically asking for opinions this is a useful answer, though I am not sure that I entirely agree with you.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on September 29th, 2006

• This is a really good answer. Thoughtful and honest.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on September 29th, 2006

• For what it is worth, I have worked in abortion clinics and I have talked with many women who have had abortions. I've never met one for whom it was not a very difficult decision that haunted them for a long time.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on November 20th, 2006

• Exactly -- *nobody* I have ever talked to about this is "in favor of abortion". It is always traumatic, painful, and heart-rending. The debate is over whether or not the state has the right to forbid the procedure, and over the moral issues involved. But any time you reduce moral issues to a simple rule (i.e. "it's always murder"), you can bet that paradoxes and "what if?...'s " will abound.

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on November 20th, 2006

• I agree, certain circumstances make the procedure far more understandable. Enough so, that I can't see the issue ever being cut and dry one way or the other, regardless of one's beliefs. My stance has changed somewhat over the years but I don't want the church or politicians making the decisions for us.

  • Report
  

  by Little Miss Dangerous on November 25th, 2006

• littlemissdangerous: No one wants the church or state making decisions for them on any matter. We want the church and state to make decisions about everyone else. :)

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on November 29th, 2006

• i think that an abortion is right for certain situations(like littlemissdangerous and stableboy say)but it is for the woman to make the choice after giving it alot of thought.

  • Report
  

  by rgypsy on December 15th, 2006

• It is definately an issue of circumstance. Murder has been completely skewed from its original meaning and been thwarted into almost complete obscurity. The honest truth of all these situations is that its the person's choice, since elementary school we've been conditioned to stand up for ourselves, state our opinions and don't let others think for us, yet the government continually insists on stating its overpowering opinion onto the weaker beings of the country. So in all respects, let the one such a situation concerns speak for themselves and make their own decisions.

  • Report
  

  by Trevan on April 5th, 2007

• My extended opinion on this topic is located here: http://tinyurl.com/2phomq

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on April 5th, 2007

• Not even close.

  • Report
  

  by J and B on July 13th, 2007

• JandB, is Lady Fuschia's answer not even close or the comments and why?

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on July 13th, 2007

Comments

• So is swatting a mosquito.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006

• Um, they said Human not insect.

  • Report
  

  by twotim221 on November 19th, 2006

• "Murder" is the *unlawful* killing of one human being by another human being.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on November 20th, 2006

• Some argue that fur coats and hamburgers are murder. If life is sacred, isn't ALL life? Or are we able to pick and choose? I apologize for assuming that that followed; you can't read my mind.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 20th, 2006

• Exactly. Just as killing in self-defense is not murder, ending a life inside the law is not murder.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• Quite right jervinator, the hypocracy and egocentricity of human thinking astounds me. We don't even apply these lofty standards to all aspects of human life. Furthermore,state sponsored killing is somehow exempt from the debate about the sacredness of life. It seems our morality is highly selective.

  • Report
  

  by tripwire on December 4th, 2006

• But-WHEN are you living? That's the questian...

  • Report
  

  by RedScareX on January 3rd, 2007

• 'Self defense" is a specific legal term. "Mother's health" not her LIFE is protected by the Courts today which allows the taking of innocent pre-born life with little justification.I argue elsewhere about the responsibility of MEN in the sexual filed, before and after conception, but there is no legal, moral defense for taking the life of the pre-born, modern medicine allows for NOT having to choose between the mother and baby, but "Health" is a cop-out. The CHOICE is whether to do something whose natural end MAY be conception, that is where MEN and WOMEN exercise CHOICE, NOT when Nature "chooses" to permit conception. Adoption is widely available for every child- one of my good friends is the product of rape and is a prize-winning high school Math teacher! God and Human Generosity on the part of many adoptive parents are less self-focused than most of our narrow viewpoints and "pro-choice" propagandists!

  • Report
  

  by barjacob on January 5th, 2007

• Is wanting to rid your defiled body of the effects of being abducted and pack raped by a mob of slobbering drunks from a keg party, one of those narrow, self-focused, propagandist view points you were referring to?

  • Report
  

  by tripwire on January 5th, 2007

• Ya, really.

  • Report
  

  by RedScareX on January 5th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Like I said before, I respect your opinion. You present it calmly and respectfully. But I'm sorry, I dont agree.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• That's okay. I appreciate your comment.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 5th, 2006

• Your welcome.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• LOL!

  • Report
  

  by RedScareX on January 3rd, 2007

• So because the child is separated from the world by a pouch of skin it is not a human until birth? Think about what youre saying! Life begins when the embryo is formed. This is not merely my own opinion but fact, rather.

  • Report
  

  by PaigeKittles on May 30th, 2008

• actually, if i remember correctly, in asian cultures your age is not determined by when you are born.. ill look into it further, but arguing that abortion is not murder because we celebrate birthdays is equivalent to arguing that santa exists cuz we celebrate christmas

  • Report
  

  by insaner on September 21st, 2008

• Love your answer, insaner :-)

  • Report
  

  by PaigeKittles on October 10th, 2008

Comments

• You mean me? Or the person who left their opinion?

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• This was one of the first answers given to this question and references an answer that is lost in the other 56.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on December 5th, 2006

• I didnt think they were talking about me. but I WAS FLATTERED FOR THE TIME BEING!

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

Comments

• So...by your definition, a living being includes all plant and animal life. Did you murder some dinner tonight?

  • Report
  

  by ptrask on November 20th, 2006

• yes plant life is living, but you are missing the point. Murdering a human after it has been born is wrong, my point is if the baby is human outside the womb, and it is a living being inside the womb, then why wouldn't it be human, what else could it be. If it is a living human inside the womb then yes it would be murder to abort the baby. Plant life cannot be placed on the same level as a human life, whether before or after the birth.

  • Report
  

  by smsedmc on November 21st, 2006

• Defining a fetus as a person inside a womb does not immediately require the mother to keep it inside her body. I know of no legal requirement that states a person must keep another person inside of their body. What it does require is that abortions extract the fetus intact so that it can live/die on its own.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• AntigoneRising, what law are you thinking of? Most procedures kill it by either cutting it up or killing it chemically and then sucking it out, unless it's late term and even then it is killed before birth.

  • Report
  

  by sheenashark on December 4th, 2006

• Antigone: You can find a legal requirement in tort law. By creating the embryo the mother has assumed a special duty of care. If you put someone in a dangerous situation and cause them to depend on you for their safety then you are responsible for the well-being of that person. This all comes down to the personhood and rights of the embryo, as usual. (It isn't a fetus until later on in the process.)

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 4th, 2006

• Antigone: at the best your statement, when applied to any other human life, would be considered negligent homicide. You are 'extracting' the baby from its sole source of food and life support, and forcing it to live in these new conditions knowing it will not survive. This is the equivalent to not feeding a toddler (or any other person) and seeing how long it can survive, a definite case of murder. But again, this is not the typical means of abortion, most places force it to be done earlier in the pregnancy so that it is less tramatic on the mother, in which case the kill the baby, and either allow the mother's body to then reject it, or remove it (depending on how far along she is), in either case action is taken to actually kill the baby.

  • Report
  

  by smsedmc on December 11th, 2006

Comments

• Uhh...this doesn't qualify as an informed (or even an uninformed) argument. You have to say something which at least simulates insight, providing information, logical progression, or original thought. I believe the rules of the game are printed on the side panel somewhere.

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on November 21st, 2006

• Stableboy; no matter which guise this user reverts to, his answers are never thoughtful or insightful.

  • Report
  

  by Carmella on December 2nd, 2006

• I dont agree with bignose choice of words, but I agree with what he/she is saying.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

Comments

• A photo of a fetus looks like a photo of a fetus to me -- it is amazing -- but that doesn't elevate it to the status of human for me.

  • Report
  

  by Persky Bunkermeister on November 17th, 2006

• Have you ever seen a mother die due to a botched back-alley (non-clinical) abortion?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006

• jervinator, mothers die even in clinical abortions....and people make money on the "parts" leftover. Also, the suicide rate for teen who have has abortions (especially without parental consent) is very high and not taken into consideration.

  • Report
  

  by sheenashark on November 22nd, 2006

• True, as far as it goes. Any surgery carries a risk, but I prefer licensed professionals in a sterile environment using tools from an autoclave over the alternative. Ever had medical treatment in Mexico? As for the suicide rate, what about the teen mothers forced to keep the baby? Or the babies left in the dumpsters?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 22nd, 2006

• Yup, I've seen pictures of a fetus. I still don't think abortion is murder.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 4th, 2006

• When you say that you've seen pictures of a fetus you mean an aborted fetus?

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 21st, 2006

• AntigoneRising, they methodically suck the baby apart limb after limb and then crush the skull to get it out of the uterus. How would you like it if you were broken apart limb after limb. What ever happened to the "unalienable rights" of the BLOODY constitution. ugh, people like you sicken me.
  
  Go buy a nice piece of real-estate SIX FEET UNDER!!!

  • Report
  

  by Vicariousity on December 8th, 2008

• Funny. You are pro-life and yet you want to kill an adult.
  You totally discredit the "sanctity of life" argument with your hypocrisy and make people like me more staunchly pro-choice if for no reason other than to prove that we are not psychotic like you.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 8th, 2008

• Hey jerv, I never said I want to kill anyone, why don't you read more closely instead of making false assumptions. Also, my experiences with people have led me to believe that most adults are degenerates anyway. Don't call me a hypocrite until you have taken the time to get to know me. You are correct in saying that I am psychotic, but the only reason I have become this way is because of the bastardization that my society has become.
  
  Oh, and life and death situations are NOT FUNNY!!!

  • Report
  

  by Vicariousity on December 10th, 2008

• Technically true - you just want them to die on their own. Still, you want them dead.
  .
  I agree with you somewhat about most adults being degenerate, though I may have a different definition than you. I think we all have moral shortcomings, some more than others.
  The only reason I managed to avoid psychosis is that I chose the path of detached cynicism which allows me to look at certain issues with logic instead of emotion.
  Abortion is one of those issues, and one where many people let their emotions blind them to reality. All they see is a baby and that is all they care to see, all they think about, and they don't care about what sort of life that baby will have or what may happen to the parents or anything. Only baby.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 10th, 2008

Comments

• Murder is the unlawfull killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 3rd, 2006

• you have to think about having an abotion as well. And you do it knowing that it is being done to keep the baby from living. Yes, It is MURDER.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• How can I make this any simpler for you, Miyaku? If it is not illegal, then it is not murder. It is homocide, yes. It is infanticide, yes. It is filicide, yes. But it is not murder.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 5th, 2006

• I know what you mean. But just because it isnt illegal dosent make it right. But we both are intilted to our opions. Can we agree to dissagree?

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• No, we can not agree to disagree! :) But, the question was not about whether abortion is right or wrong. The question is whether abortion is murder.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 5th, 2006

• I believe it is murder, you believe it isn't. I ACCEPT your opion, although I don't agree. Are you agreeable to this?

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• I am not. "murder" is a legal term. When you talk about "murder", people will assume that you are using the legal definition. If someone looses control of their car on ice and kills a pedestrian, would you call them a murderer? Since you want to have you own definition of "murder", would you please share it with us?

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 5th, 2006

• I will gladly do so:
  IF SOMEONE LOOSES CONTROLL OF THEIR CAR ON AN ICEY ROAD AND KILLS
  SOMEONE,NO I WOULD NOT CALL THEM A MURDERER. IT WAS AN ~ACCIDENT~. BUT,
  WHEN SOMEONE HAS A ONE-NIGHT-STAND AND BECOMES PREGNANT, AND THEN
  CHOOSES TO HAVE THE ABORTION KNOWING THAT IT IS MEANT TO KILL THE FETUS
  OR BABY THEN YES, I WOULD CALL THEM A MURDERER BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT
  THEY ARE DOING AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROLL OVER THE SITUATION.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• Well,I was asking for a definition, not an example. May I assume that in your definition, if a person has intent to kill another, and then carries that out, it is murder?

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• Yes, you may assume this. Sorry I was vague before.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• Then it is murder when we execute a criminal. And it is murder when someone is about to stab you and you shoot them, knowing they will die. And it is murder when our boys in Iraq shoot a man with dynamite strapped to his body. And it is murder when doctors remove a respirator from a comatose patient. So you can see why it is important that we define our terms. If the question was "Is abortion wrong?" then we would be having a very differant conversation.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• Your the one that took it out of proportion. All I did was state my opinion that abortion was murder. And correct me if I'm wrong but your opinion is that since abortion is not illegal that it is not murder, Is this your opinion?

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• It is my opinion, and it is a legal fact. Murder is a word with a specific connotation. You seem to want to use it for dramatic effect, to mean something that it doesn't mean. You must agree that we can't have a discussion about murder unless we agree on what murder is. If you think that murder is any deliberate killing, then how do you explain the situations I described in my last comment.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• I support our soldiers in Iraq, they're defending our country.(My cousin is one of them.) Is it murder to execute a criminal? That depends on his crime. Is it murder to shoot someone who is trying to stab you? No, I would call that self defense. And as far as the comatose thing goes, That would be up to the the family and patient. To me murder is this:
  
  If you deliberatly choose to kill something innocent, weaker than you
  knowing full well that it cannot protect itself then I believe it to be murder.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• That is what abortion is.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• Now we're getting somewhere. You've defined a subset of murder. Killing something stronger than you can still be murder. Killing something that is no innocent can still be murder. You gloss over the target; it is not murder if it is not a human being, right? Murder only applies to illegal killings, but let's put that aside. So, if a woman has an abortion, then she is a murderer, right? She has commited murder, so she should be sentenced to at least 20 years in a prison and labeled as a violent felon for the rest of her life, right?

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• Depending.If she had a one that got her pregnant and she didnt want the responsibility of raising the child, then I believe She should be punished. (this is comming from a very religious person)

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• So, the death of a child is a greater crime if the mother was promiscuous? (This is coming from a law student.)

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• I believe so, Yes. (you'd make a good lawyer. your stubborn and persistant...I like to see that).

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• Thank you. Confrontation is very efficient, if both sides know how to play the game. So... now we both know where we are coming from. In America, the legal system will not punish a woman for being promiscuous, not will it charge a woman for an act which is not a crime. However, your definition of murder, which is fine, differs from the traditional, legal one. (Murder usually refers to a crime, whereas killing and homocide refer to an act.) And you can see how, with two differant meanings for "murder", we will accomplish nothing here. That was essencially what I set out to show. :)
  

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• I know what you think, you know what I think. Your right, we will get
  no where since we cannot find a common ground. I respect your athority
  as well as your opinion. After all a 16 yr. old has no right to disrespect her elders.

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• That depends on what you mean by a "right". Legally, there are no impediments on a 16-year-old's right to self-expression, though if you take the position that the American legal system is based on the Decalogue as translated in Exodus 20... (no no no, I'm just kidding!)
  

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 6th, 2006

• To you really want o go on a Biblical dicussion? LOL

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 6th, 2006

• branciforte3241 Dec, 06 2006 at 02:07 PM
  Then it is murder when we execute a criminal. And it is murder when someone is about to stab you and you shoot them, knowing they will die. And it is murder when our boys in Iraq shoot a man with dynamite strapped to his body. And it is murder when doctors remove a respirator from a comatose patient. So you can see why it is important that we define our terms. If the question was "Is abortion wrong?" then we would be having a very differant conversation.
  
  
  
  I agree that its all murder. To take anothers life is murder, premedatated or no.

  • Report
  

  by shabyc411 on January 30th, 2009

• No. To take another's life is homicide. It is only murder if the killing is illegal. Killing in self-defense is legal (assuming you were threatened with lethal force) and therefor it is not murder.
  
  People, this concept goes back thousands of years. If you start changing the meanings of words, like "murder", to mean whatever you think they should mean, then we are never going to have a meaningful discussion ever again, since we'll be talking about to different things.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on January 31st, 2009

Comments

• Is it better to have the baby and kill it later whether through neglect, poverty, abuse, or what-have-you? I would rather see the baby die in a doctor's office than any of those things.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006

• I wouldn't. I'd rather not see it die at all.

  • Report
  

  by Tenaciouscj on December 31st, 2008

Comments

Comments

• How many times are you going to answer?

  • Report
  

  by ptrask on November 20th, 2006

• LOL,, I have done that too

  • Report
  

  by guitarman18 on November 28th, 2006

• Sometimes I forget which ones I have been on and I have a habit of scrolling down so fast that I dont see the other one.... I havent done it but a couple of times..LOL,,, duh!

  • Report
  

  by hemiman on November 28th, 2006

Comments

• Wow, this is completely unhelpful (and no, I haven't rated you). You act as if getting pregnant is a choice the person made. This is very rarely the case.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• Do you think a baby that survived the birthing process is the same as a fetus in the first or second trimester?

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on December 2nd, 2006

• Ummm...having sex (or even messing around) = choice to get pregnant. If you are THAT worried about getting pregnant don't have sex. Geez, is it that difficult to figure out? I suppose that is what comes from a generation without rules and consequences. I want to do what I want, when I want, and darn anybody (even my child) that may get in the way. Actions have consequences.

  • Report
  

  by sheenashark on December 4th, 2006

• This is very rarely the case? Not really, since rape accounts for an extremely small percentage of abortions. So if a woman is not raped then she absolutely chose to have sex. Uh, having sex can lead to pregnancy, you know.

  • Report
  

  by muguet on December 10th, 2006

• so if you use birth control because you dont want to get pregnant and it fails and you do get pregnant, than you choose to? doesnt seem logical to me...

  • Report
  

  by pigeonpower on December 20th, 2006

• I agree. I don't think there are many people seeking abortions that originally wanted to get pregnant and later changed their mind. Some had every intention of having responsible sex and merely got unlucky. As for not having sex... it seems that someone here is not a member of the animal kingdom. I suppose mental illness is also a matter of choice? Some people can control their urges, but most can't, at least not flawlessly for their entire lives. Therefore being alive = choice to get pregnant.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 20th, 2006

• I believe if you choose to have sex, you choose to get pregnant. If you are going to have sex you need to realize that you could become pregnant even if trying to prevent it. Take responsibility for your actions.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 13th, 2008

• By that logic, by going out in public you choose to catch a cold. By driving a car, you choose to get hit head-on by an 18-wheeler. By walking down the street of Manhattan, you choose to get crushed by the debris of a collapsing building.
  .
  Sometimes, abortion IS the responsible choice. Would you rather the kid was born and winds up either dying later due to lack of adequate nutrition/medical care OR winds up lost in the system and grows up TOTALLY dysfunctional OR gets sent to a foster home where the agency is too overworked to notice that the kid is getting abused/neglected/molested while the "caretaker" collects the checks.
  Maybe a life of Hell IS better than never being born.
  .
  Of course, that's MY opinion; you're entitled to yours.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on April 13th, 2008

• Most pro-lifers only seem to care about making sure the baby is born. After that, it's not their problem if the child is tortured because he or she wasn't wanted.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on April 20th, 2008

• "But EVERY child is a wanted child!"
  .
  (Too bad unformatted ASCII text cannot display the fullness of the sarcasm dripping off of that.)

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on April 20th, 2008

• Perhaps every child is not a wanted child, but every child does deserve the right to live. Plenty of people come from bad homes and grow up to be fantastic people. My mom is one of those people.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 22nd, 2008

• My own upbringing was rather... harsh, so I can agree with that one.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on April 22nd, 2008

• Regardless of the person I became, if I had the choice between not being born and repeating the childhood I had, I would choose death.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on April 22nd, 2008

Comments

• Actually, suicide is not considered murder. Not in the US legal system, at ant rate.
  
  Is capital punishment murder? Is war murder? Is self-defense murder? When a policeman shoots a criminal, is that murder? Raising the speed limit? Suspending life-support for the brain-dead, is that murder?
  
  I mean, come on people. Try to think a little.
  

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on November 21st, 2006

• Yeah, nothing is black and white really.

  • Report
  

  by Fisherofman on November 21st, 2006

• If you can break any complex social problem down into 4 sentences or less, you haven't even begun to research the subject, let alone analyze it. If it were that simple, the debate would have been settled years ago.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 4th, 2006

• branciforte3241, shut up, no one cares what you have to say - you heartless bitch.

  • Report
  

  by Vicariousity on December 8th, 2008

• Anonymous, yeah I take advice from someone too cowardly to have a username.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 8th, 2008

• Not necessarily - it takes a special talent to be able to condense an opinion into 4 sentences or fewer. I like to cut to the chase and avoid waffle too.

  • Report
  

  by Tenaciouscj on December 31st, 2008

Comments

• I agree mostly, but I have to ask you this; do you consider a fertilized egg that has yet to implant itself into the uterine wall to be a child?
  If so, you are basically saying that certain forms of birth control are premeditated murder.
  If not, then the hype and hysteria over certain types of so-called "abortion pills" is absurdly overblown.
  .
  I ask merely for clarification.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 11th, 2008

• Hmmmm...you bring up a good point here. But here's my answer and my reasoning:
  .
  I take the stand that INDUCED abortion is murder because it is the DELIBERATE act of intentionally killing an unborn child for matters of convenience.
  .
  Based upon this, I don't have a problem with the PREVENTION of conception as a form of birth control by whatever means, be it condoms, rhythm method, birth control pills/implants, or what have you.
  .
  HOWEVER, once fertilization has taken effect, intentionally interfering with it's natural course of developement for the purpose of birth control amounts to intentional abortion.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 12th, 2008

• I suppose you could also go back to the whole question of "what is a human being?". And again I would go back to my answer to those who say that an unborn child is NOT a human being until birth: "Exactly WHAT is this unborn child if it's not human? And how does passing through the birth canal magically turn it into a human?
  .
  Murder is a purely human concept that requires two things of society for it's definition:
  1) A belief that intentionally killing another human being without cause is WRONG.
  2) That the victim be, in fact, a HUMAN.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 12th, 2008

• When we get so far back in the develpement of a human being that we start having to ask ourselves such questions as "is this really a human being or not" then I apply another standard with which to guide myself:
  .
  When you have to ask yourself if what you're doing is right or not; when you wonder what other people might think of your actions; if you find yourself looking over your shoulder to see if you're being watched, then you're fixin' to mess up.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 12th, 2008

• Left apart, a sperm and an egg CANNOT possibly develop into a human being naturally.
  .
  Joined as a fertilized egg, they MAY become what you and I recognize as a human being later. Once this event has happened, this is where I personally draw the line.
  .
  Does this answer your question?

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 12th, 2008

• More than any other anti-abortion people ever have. That's why I asked you; I figured you'd be level-headed about it.
  .
  I think the main part was about the "morning after" type stuff. After all, there are some forms of "regular" birth control that work not by preventing fertilization, but by preventing implantation. Besides, there are many NATURAL "spontaneous abortions" due to that. Conception isn't as reliable as many think, though it's reliable enough to take preventive measures if you wish to avoid it.
  However, I think that once it's implanted itself then it should be left alone, barring extreme extenuating circumstances. You and I are fairly close in opinion, differing by about 72 hours or so.
  .
  The ones that get me are the hard-core pro-lifers who believe that even condoms are murder. Those are usually the type of people sitting in a sniper perch outside of Planned Parenthood.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 12th, 2008

• Yes, a fairly large portion of conceptions result in spontaneous abortions, some without any outward sign that a pregnancy had ocurred. This is Mother Nature's way of weeding out the 'defective' or 'abnormal' fetus' and is an entirely natural occurance. That's why I usually specify 'induced abortion' when I talk about abortion, because I wish to differentiate between them.
  .
  And abortion clinic bombers and snipers are no better than those they are fighting against. Murder is murder. Just because the victim of an abortion clinic bomber was an abortionist doesn't justify taking the law into their own hands. That isn't 'justice'.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 13th, 2008

• I have a hard spot on a few things having to do with contraception beliefs of extremists myself. (contraception being the prevention of the union of sperm and egg)
  .
  My wife is Catholic, I'm Protestant (you could say I'm in a mixed marriage). She conforms to the Church stand on contraception, which essentially says that the only approved method of birth control is natural family planning and that prevention of the possibility of a pregnancy by any other means is wrong.
  .
  I do not share this belief. However, since it doesn't violate any other beliefs I have concerning matters sexual or with abortion, then I respect her wishes in this matter and that's the method we use.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 13th, 2008

• Personally, after having three children, I'd just as soon get snipped and be done with the possibility altogether, but....

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 13th, 2008

• I have been.
  I decided as early as 16 that if I didn't want a sprog by 30 that I'd get clipped. My wife felt similarly about her biological clock. When we first got involved, we discovered we were on the same page.
  Fast forward six years and we figured it was easier for me to get an outpatient job that was 100% covered by insurance than to pay $500 out-of-pocket for her to get surgery.
  .
  As for religion we are a lapsed Pagan and an Agnostic with Taoist leanings. Slightly more liberal ;)

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on August 13th, 2008

• THERE'S an interesting combination!

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 13th, 2008

• Good answer Chief.

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on February 22nd, 2010

• Thank you, Texasescimo.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on February 22nd, 2010

• You are most welcome sir.

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on February 22nd, 2010

• You may have all my points and any that I acquire in the future. Your words are how I feel right down to the letter. Bravo my friend.

  • Report
  

  by Babycakes on February 15th, 2011

• Thank you, Babycakes!
  
  :):)

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on February 15th, 2011

• I happen to be pro choice but I love how people can discuss things & not agree. To the 2 people I know on this thread Babycakes & Chief, you 2 are just a class act

  • Report
  

  by Little big mouth on February 15th, 2011

• :):)
  
  jerv is a pretty good guy, too, though he left the site a little over a year ago. (He's the one with the dates for a Display name.)

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on February 15th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Yup, people don`t like to hear the truth.

  • Report
  

  by Oor Galooly - on October 5th, 2008

• Right on, Singwell.

  • Report
  

  by 2highspeed on October 5th, 2008

• I just got my first neg.....awwwww. It must hurt to see the truth in front of one's eyes. Thanks for the support, guys.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on October 5th, 2008

• I think all supporters of abortion, especially politicians, should be forced to watch one taking place in real life. Much like how they forced the Germans to visit the gas chambers and open graves of the Holocaust after WW 2. I'm sure it would change some people`s minds.

  • Report
  

  by Oor Galooly - on October 5th, 2008

• I think you are right.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on October 5th, 2008

• Yes, I think that would change a few minds. Though some are more concerned with getting a vote than they are with human decency.

  • Report
  

  by 2highspeed on October 5th, 2008

• Dont you have to get an abortion within the first 9 weeks? So your twelve week thing is out of place.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 2nd, 2008

• Some countries do abortions up to 24 weeks. And Obama believes in abortion up to 9 months. Obama actually believes in letting living and breathing babies lie on a table to die without care.

  • Report
  

  by Oor Galooly - on November 2nd, 2008

• But the baby is not yet a human being in the sense that it has no individuality or memories to act upon. It can't think, it can't speak, it can't talk, it has no means of communicating--except for sporadic kicks to the stomach. It is not a person yet, and if we consider humanity to be composed of human beings, then the fetus, which is human, is exempt from it since it is not a human being.
  
  Additionaly, murder is defined as the killing of a person, not the killing of something human. A fetus is not a person, therefore, abortion is NOT murder.

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on November 28th, 2008

• Dude, there isn`t one doctor alive who would claim that the fetus isn`t alive and breathing. That argument died the death a long time ago, everyone knows it`s a living being.

  • Report
  

  by Oor Galooly - on November 28th, 2008

• I never said that mr strawman.

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on November 28th, 2008

• You're insane, and Obama rawks.

  • Report
  

  by AnuKat on December 7th, 2008

• Atlas- So if you go into a comatose state are you no longer human? You no longer have memories, no ability to speak, can't communicate, and any muscular movement would be involuntary spasms. Yet, a comatose person is protected as a human. Why? Because of the potential of their recovery. An aborted baby has all the same potential as a comatose person for living and having all those things that make them "human" by your definition.
  
  Your moral reasoning for abortion, must be applied to all aspects of life, you cannot just apply it where it fits your desires. If the logic applies, it must apply at all ages.

  • Report
  

  by 2highspeed on December 7th, 2008

• I competly agree with you, and thanks for responding. A comoatosed human brain actualy exhibits an enormous amount of brain activity in the higher regions of the brain, if you want to, you can look up that piece of information. Now, the comatosed brain is likly, since its higher brain regions are quite active, and the higher regions are often associated with long term memories, fooling around with its long term memories within the medium of dream. If you look up the last statement, you will also find lots of articles about comatose brain dreaming.
  
  Now, if you look at the fetus. It definitly has no memories and it can't think in a language; and we don't currently know if a comatose brain has the capacity to think in language durring its dreams.
  
  Any human organism (not talking about just people here, but also fetuses) that may demonstrate that it has many charateristics of the person should be protected until it can no longer be protected. A fetus does not seem to possess these

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on December 11th, 2008

• charateristics. Now that dosen't mean that we shoulden't protect our fetuses from becoming human beings. But one of the implications of my argumentation, in this case, is that the pottencial abortion of the fetus should be considered, given appropiate circumstances, by the parents--rather then simply having the goverment place a national ban on abortinon.
  .
  Do you consider age -.5 to be an age? Can you have a negeitive age?
  .
  
  How do you know that I'm applying this logic where it fits my desires? It could be the case that I find the very concept of abortion apaling on an emotional level; but, I've simply disconected my resoning from the emotional opinion that my brain has generated through automatic processes.
  .
  Thanks for responding. I appologize if my response to your posting is unsatisfactory, if it is, I'll be glad to continue the disscusion.\
  .
  Oh, and if it turns out that some comatose brains don't exhibit any higher level brain functions, then I think that for all intents and

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on December 11th, 2008

• purpose, that person no longer exists. The body at that point would be a mere homeostatic machine.
  .
  Of course, I know that that is a major debate in bioethics. And, I do acknowleage that it is quite possible that I'm wrong; however, so far,I haven't encountered any arguments for the idea that the comatosed brain, with no higher order brain functions, is a person. But, mabey you can convince me otherwise.
  .
  If you want, we could disscuss things through email.
  
  My email is: chrisdudgale@gmail.com

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on December 11th, 2008

• First, babies have been shown to recognize voices, learn and grow even before birth. My nephews were born the size of a bic pen, and today are healthy sixteen year old boys. By the abortionist standard they could have been aborted. They weren't even in the third trimester when they were born. Chances of their survival was low and would have been acceptable to an abortionist, yet here they are.
  
  All that said, you give the answer to your own argument. You said you may be wrong, that should be enough. Without KNOWING, that the baby or the comatose patient is "human" by your definition, is it worth risking? It is far better to err on the side of conservatism here, because if 10 years from now as Science proves your wrong, could you live with such a decision? Knowing you supported murder?

  • Report
  

  by 2highspeed on December 12th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• I have had an abortion, so I can tell you that when it comes down to it, and you are in the situation...there are no lines...everything is blurry. BTW, I was solidly anti-abortion before I got pregnant and had my abortion.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• I don't plan on becoming pregnant but if for some reason it does happen, I would deal with whatever comes my way. There was a time that I didn't want any pets and one came my way and it was a blessing, I would try to see the good in the situation.

  • Report
  

  by Wendora on December 2nd, 2006

• There are also lots of gay male couples that would gladly accept a baby from an unplanned pregnancy and would most likely help out with the birth expenses. Not that I would give up a baby for adoption because I'm married but it would be alternative for women not married or prepared for parenthood.

  • Report
  

  by Wendora on December 2nd, 2006

• So did I, but there are a lot of considerations you never dreamed of until it happens to you. I went to sleep at night wrapping my arms around my tummy and saying, "My baby," and still had an abortion. Unless you've been there, you really cannot understand it.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• There are more considerations than just who cares for the baby after it is born. Medicaid will pay your medical expenses, but not your bills while you are out of work. I certainly didn't have paid sick leave at the time...I was a waitress. I had a job, but there certainly weren't any social services willing to help me pay my car payment, insurance, and gas so that I could GET there. This is a complex issue, and I stand by what I've said. Walk a day or two in the shoes I did, and you will quickly find them very tight.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• cont'd - Numerous, almost uncountable, changes happen in your life when you are pregnant and have a baby. Saying you can give the baby up for adoption after the baby is born ignores all but one of those changes. In order to combat abortion in society, we have to have viable alternatives that address EACH AND EVERY change/concern. If people want women to have a baby because abortion is murder, they need to put their money where their mouth is and make it an viable option.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• I am sorry that you were forced to have sex against your will and that you became pregnant. Maybe I would not want to carry the child of a rapist either.

  • Report
  

  by Wendora on December 2nd, 2006

• I am sorry, too, but rape accounts for a very small percentage of abortions.

  • Report
  

  by muguet on December 10th, 2006

• Exactly. Most abortions are performed for social reasons.

  • Report
  

  by Tenaciouscj on December 31st, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• What a bunch of crap. No offence.

  • Report
  

  by twotim221 on September 27th, 2006

• None taken...the facts speak for themselves.

  • Report
  

  by Sunblynd 5.0 on September 27th, 2006

• Your answer explains it very well. This is good information.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on September 29th, 2006

• Knowledge is the key to everything. Nice job!!

  • Report
  

  by Damiana on December 20th, 2006

Comments

• Great answer!!

  • Report
  

  by Cognition aka Cog on December 30th, 2008

• I agree. +6

  • Report
  

  by - M.C.S. - Dave on January 24th, 2009

Comments

• i don't know whats up people's butts when it comes to other people's opinions...on behalf of all the downrating morons..i give you three points lol

  • Report
  

  by Mystical Dim on October 5th, 2008

• thank you

  • Report
  

  by advracer on October 6th, 2008

• Thank you for your response. However, if you define murder as the killing of a person, or human being, abortion is not murder because a fetus is not yet a person. It is human; however, it does not have the nessacary charateristics for it to be considered a human.
  
  To take it further, if we consider humanity the set of all viable, functional human beings, then a fetus is not yet a member of the set of functional human beings, since it is not yet a person (human being=person).
  
  Just stuff to think about, I'm not someone who is trying to be aggressive or anything. I just think that people should be obliged to throughly think about their ideas and beliefs.

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on November 28th, 2008

• Sorry, but I disagree, I believe that the fetus is a person, or at the VERY least, a future person. Still killing in my book. Still murder.

  • Report
  

  by advracer on November 28th, 2008

• Again, thanks for responding. But, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you believe that abortion is murder more explicitly. Again, I'm not trying to press or anything. I'm just looking for a healthy discussion.

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on November 28th, 2008

• No problem, I like the fact that you are willing to discuss it, vs have a yelling match.
  
  I see no difference between a newborn (as in JUST newborn) and the fetus that was in the womb just 30 second prior. In my opinion, they are one and the same. Mentally, they are at the same exact level, they have the same heart beating, etc etc etc.

  • Report
  

  by advracer on December 1st, 2008

• Well that is true, is the organism that is inside of the womb just before being expelled from it considered a fetus? After all, the term fetus is used to denote a certain stage of devolopment, where the organism transitions from a not so functional entity to a somewhat functional one. Also, I don't think that it is common practice to carry out abortions at the last minute, although I do know that that does happen.
  
  Is there a stage of devolopment where you consider the organism to be quite distinct from the newborn?
  
  I completly agree with you that the newborn is at the same devolopmental level as the unborn was 30 seconds before being birthed, but I have a tendency to think that there are lower levels of devlopment where the unborn is very distinct from the newborn (but of course, this is not 30seconds prior to birth).

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on December 1st, 2008

• Nice discussion! It is SO nice to chat with someone about this without all the usual name calling crap.
  
  Anyway, to the discussion, if you take my above argument, about there being no difference between one just born to the one about to be born, you could go back all the way to inception, in my mind. The difference between one 1 hour before birth and 2 hours before birth? nothing really.. the one 300 hours before birth and 301 hours before birth? nothing really. I could go back and argue that same thing all through the entire 10 months. There really is NOT any kind of actual moment in the growth of the fetus/child where one second it is a fetus, the next second WHAMMO it is a child, except for when that sperm enters the egg. There is a huge change once that sperm breaks the barrier into the egg. Other than that, everything is just an ongoing growth process. Please note, I used the term GROWTH process.

  • Report
  

  by advracer on December 2nd, 2008

Comments

• Although I may not agree with everything in your answer, I definitely respect your opinion. +5

  • Report
  

  by mseve68 on February 6th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• well said

  • Report
  

  by Jade on March 26th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Good point -- re: what happens to all the unwanted children -- you can get an idea of their life by looking in the slums of Brazil.

  • Report
  

  by Persky Bunkermeister on November 17th, 2006

• I think that the right-to-lifers should be court-ordered to clear out all the orphanages and adopt all the homeless and unwanted children of the world. Maybe then they'll understand the harsh reality of the world outside their dogma.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on November 18th, 2006

Comments

Comments

• How do you know she loved me? For all you know she got high on drugs and alcohol right through the pregnancy and then stuck pins in my eyes whilst I was growing up.

  • Report
  

  by Carmella on December 2nd, 2006

• My mother may not have "murdered" me but she most certainly did not love me. Don't make assumptions about other people when you have no idea what you're talking about. If I got pregnant, I would have an abortion because this world is already full of unwanted, unloved children. From my experience, it would be a kindness.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on December 2nd, 2006

Comments

• Yes, the point is having the state decide the issue. The ethical quandary is personal.

  • Report
  

  by LynfromNM on December 3rd, 2006

• LynfromNM, you rock!

  • Report
  

  by fredhetz on December 3rd, 2006

• Well, we tried letting the states decide certain issues, but a certain few of the states had a real problem doing the right thing, like slav ery and segregation. The Constitution trumps states rights. A state can't vote to burn witches, for instance.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 3rd, 2006

• Thank you, fredhetz. Thank you so much for your sensibility, humility, and logic.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 4th, 2006

• ErikaJ, you and LynfromNM rock my world.

  • Report
  

  by fredhetz on December 4th, 2006

• I agree with ErikaJ.

  • Report
  

  by Jodie44 on December 19th, 2006

• Thanks, Jodie44!

  • Report
  

  by fredhetz on December 20th, 2006

• I agree totally and a very good point too - well said!

  • Report
  

  by Damiana on December 20th, 2006

• Thanks -- that's very sweet.

  • Report
  

  by fredhetz on December 20th, 2006

• It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is considered to be..A human..Because if it is, then it's not up to the mother, it's up to the government. And if the woman has the abortion, (it being her body has nothing to do with it) then it's murder, because she had another human being killed....But, if the fetus is considered to be just as worthless as a cyst, then by all means, remove it..Is jacking off murder? After all, all of those little sperms die, if they're not being put to use...So, I'm saying, there's a certain stage in the human formation, that makes it a human..And I'm not sure when it could technically be classified as one..Hmmm....

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on December 29th, 2006

• FEMENISM ALL THE WAY BABY!!!
  (From a dirty-old-man...)

  • Report
  

  by RedScareX on January 3rd, 2007

• Wow, that is some scary logic, fredhetz. By that logic, if, as a married man, I decided I wanted to kill my father-in-law because he was annoying (which I don't believe) then a single person would not have the right to judge me for my decision since they have no idea what it is like to have a father-in-law. If your logic were to be truly utilized then our society would be left to utter and complete chaos.

  • Report
  

  by smsedmc on April 3rd, 2008

Comments

• WOW and you are only 15. I wish adult women had your sense of right & wrong or even cared that they were killing a human being. I applaud you for being a mature caring teen.. I don't see that very much. you will one day make a great mom

  • Report
  

  by Scrappy on October 19th, 2008

• thank you very much i love babie and i hoe to smoeday have some of my own and i want to adot/ save some from abortion but i just wish that people thought the same way that i do

  • Report
  

  by Elysia1993 on October 19th, 2008

• YOU GO GIRL!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Curious on December 28th, 2008

• Yes, good on you.

  • Report
  

  by Tenaciouscj on December 31st, 2008

• not addressing the question, but okay, so, are you gonna take care of the unwanted children?, oh what's that? no? then STFU

  • Report
  

  by Christopher_R4487 on January 23rd, 2011

• nice

  • Report
  

  by J.P113 on March 4th, 2011

Comments

Comments

• And when, in your opinion, does science say the embryo is alive?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 5th, 2008

• Science doesn't say that it knows...

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 5th, 2008

• I feel that a fetus is a living being, once it is capable of living outside the womb(including incubation).

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on October 5th, 2008

• Science states that the sings of life are Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion and Nutrition. When we reach 5 of these these we can be said to be alive. Science has proven that children feed intraveniously.(1) Reproduction is seen through cell division.(2) Sensitivity is shown through repsonses to music, and voices.(3) Growth is obvious.(4) Movement is also easily documented.(5) So while scientists won't make the statement that they "know" they've provided all the information needed to prove when life begins scientifically. You just have to read between the lines.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on October 5th, 2008

• * Living things are made of cells.
  * Living things obtain and use energy.
  * Living things grow and develop.
  * Living things reproduce.
  * Living things use DNA.
  
  What's your source? This is what I was taught. This says that life starts at the moment of conception.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 5th, 2008

• You're right I should have realised, when locomotion was one of the characterists, that my source was dead wrong. I appologize, I ran my mouth before my brain.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on October 5th, 2008

• Yeah, plants don't move=] That's OK, though :). I don't really feel like having a debate over the morals, done that too much.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2008

• Yeah, a zygote is very clearly alive; however, do you think that it has the nessacary qualities that constitutes a person?

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on October 6th, 2008

• I do not.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on October 6th, 2008

• A zygote is a human/person (Homo sapien).
  Technically speaking:
  .
  Human:
  .
  :primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man ; broadly : hominid)
  .
  Human: Synonyms - Person, Man, Being, etc.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2008

• I feel that once a zygote/fetus, can survive outside the mother, then you have life. Until then, you have something that can become life. But I see life as self sustaining, and since zygotes are totally dependant on the mother, I don't believe they are alive.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on October 6th, 2008

• OK, so a bacterium living inside my body is not living if it is in need of my body? Is not a person in a coma who is in need of 24 hour medical care and IV fluid not alive? The bacterium is totally dependent on my body and the person is totally dependent on medical care.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2008

• Synonyms are not exact. That's why they exist. Argument's by definition are vacuous.

  • Report
  

  by Atlas on October 6th, 2008

• No, but synonyms are pretty close (Big, large). Why argue about the meaning of a word? I was just clearing that up.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2008

• If you remove the life support that person would die. Therefore they are no longer truely alive. It's why I have a pull the plug order in my will. As for the bacteria, they're single cell organisms, is it really fair to compair the two?

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on October 6th, 2008

• The problem with the debate, and the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy in general, is that everyone argues as if each side is mutually exclusive. For example, a body on life support is on life support because a part of their body (which is just a collection of cells) is dead.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2008

• I didn't say they were on life support...I just said they need constant support for their life :) .
  What about a person who's fully conscious but cannot live without an IV in them all the time? And yes--it's fair to compare the two because they're both considered living things. I don't think it's fair to say that before it can live outside the mother's womb it's dead and directly afterwards it's alive.
  .
  However, I know that this isn't really the most important issue in the election -- I'm supporting Obama (BIG stands for Bush is Gone).

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Feel free to down rate me if you choose, but keep in mind that I am merely QUOTING SCRIPTURE! If you disagree with me then you are disagreeing with the bible, and ultimately, with God.

  • Report
  

  by PaigeKittles on May 30th, 2008

• Completely beside the point, but I'm not so fond of the "owner of the woman" part.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on June 3rd, 2008

• That's fine and dandy, I suppose... if you have a problem with the husband being referred to as the "owner of the woman" then by all means please take it up with our Father in Heaven, as those are his words, not mine

  • Report
  

  by PaigeKittles on June 4th, 2008

• You're assuming that the law is referring to an accident fatal to the foetus.
  It could just as easily be talking about the woman. In fact, I'd say it's probably more likely to talking about the woman, because women often died due to complications of childbirth or pregnancy during that time in history.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Meaulnes on July 19th, 2008

• You haven't defined "abortion" or "murder." It's just not as simple as black-and-white.
  1. Abortion may or may not be murder. A natural miscarriage is an abortion, but not murder.
  2. A zygote of 64,000 undifferentiated cells is not a human being. Nor is an embryo. In no way can the termination of a mass of protoplasm be called "murder."
  3. Which god’s word are we to take? An old book, no matter how old, is not a god. If a god came down and spoke to me, I’d have to take it as the word of THAT god, but not of all gods.
  4. To which Bible are you referring? My bible does not say “the owner of the woman; it says “husband.”
  5. The accurate quotation is"...so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow." Clearly the termination of the foetus is NOT considered "mischief."
  .
  6. The book of Exodus also enjoins Moses' people to kill SOME people, in SOME situations, for certain reasons. Slo "murder," even Biblically, is still undefined.
  .
  7. Nonetheless, a foetus with a developed nervous system is human, thus murdered if terminated.

  • Report
  

  by Sandman on February 16th, 2009

• Okay Darkling...I don't know how else to get in touch with you. Send me an email!

  • Report
  

  by ptrask on April 23rd, 2009

• god's word you say, did god know english? or did you somehow manage to read the original papyrus scrolls the bible is said to be originated from?
  
  the bible you people read now a days is at best a 5th translation made by MAN, so, you have as much of the word of "god" in those references as I do.

  • Report
  

  by Christopher_R4487 on January 23rd, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• So your argument is that blood is the same thing as a baby.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on June 6th, 2007

• "the life of the body is the blood" is the strangest take on this argument I've ever heard. Where did you get that? What about the brain, or the heart, or personality, or fingers, or gastric system, or lungs, or... There's no single thing which is "the life of the body", and there's no hard-and-fast point at which the embryo becomes "a baby", simply because "baby" is a concept that doesn't have an absolute definition. This kind of thinking comes from taking one's own conditioning and concepts learned in childhood as if they were absolute truth. Please try again.

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on June 6th, 2007

• i was just trying to make the point that life begins when you receive blood. you following? the embryo receives blood, it becomes alive b/c it has life flowing through its veins.

  • Report
  

  by sunshine on June 6th, 2007

• So, when a dialysis machine has blood flowing through it, is it alive?

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on June 6th, 2007

• i said the life of the BODY is in the blood. not anything else.

  • Report
  

  by sunshine on June 6th, 2007

• I missed that point but it's still a curious argument. What if medical science produces a completely synthetic blood replacement? Would you consider someone with it not to be alive?

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on June 6th, 2007

• strange question to which i have no answer. well actually...i guess i would maybe. but seriously..who is gonna come up with that? anyways you went way off subject. that had nothing to do with what we were discussin. i was talkin real blood here. not fake.

  • Report
  

  by sunshine on June 6th, 2007

• I just find your concept of life interesting and was wondering how you would look at that kind of situation.

  • Report
  

  by Darkling on June 6th, 2007

• thanks...i think.

  • Report
  

  by sunshine on June 7th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Is it not muder for me to kill a deformed adult?

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on December 2nd, 2006

• Oh, boy, so then we get to decide whether or not a life can exist based upon whether or not it is "deformed". Wow. Hitler did this, btw.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on December 2nd, 2006

• I have blonde hair and blue eyes!!! and I'm German!

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 5th, 2006

• NOT!!!

  • Report
  

  by Miyaku on December 21st, 2006

• WOW - so, if I am going to have a baby with three arms, one leg, and ears growing out of its forehead, it's totally ok to have an abortion? But if I got brutally raped and nearly killed, I'm SOL?
  
  Huh.
  
  Sounds a little skewed to me.

  • Report
  

  by Simply msFortunate on December 21st, 2006