Abortion

[AtomicSlug]

Someone, please tell me, why is it if someone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with double murder, but if a woman has an abortion, it is completely legal?

[AtomicSlug]

Against abortion..abortion=killing...
I would approve it only in critical situations if a person isn't able to provide food and shelter for the baby...
But generally speaking, I'm against it..

So...your saying it's up to the woman to make a choice? I agree.

I might have to flame u, unless u ever got a woman pregnant, only to find that as a man, you had no say about an abortion.

[got tonkaed]

Someone, please tell me, why is it if someone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with double murder, but if a woman has an abortion, it is completely legal?

well to be fair....because roe vs wade made it so....

but still would it really make you feel any better if they made the stance consistent, and didnt charge double murder?

[Aegnor]

I'm pro abortion. There are too many humans on this planet anyway. Heck, I'm pro genocide.
Well I'm only kidding of course. Personally I don't think this issue will ever be resolved. I believe that a fetus is a part of the female body , and she should have the final say about it.

Oh and here's a mind boggler: Some of you ask what I would feel if my parents decided to abort me. Well let me ask you this :

Would you still be you if your dad decided to jack off one extra time before having sex with your mom?

Should masturbation be banned in that case?

[0ojakeo0]

Someone, please tell me, why is it if someone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with double murder, but if a woman has an abortion, it is completely legal?

i wuz gonna post that

[daddy1gringo]

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Yep, that's because Matthew didn't know about the Virgin Birth. He didn't believe in such a thing.

Come on, VT, you're too smart for this. Luke 3:23: "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, son of..." and there follows the genaology. Joseph acknowledged him as his son, adopted him if you will, so any hereditary rights applied.

[Beastly]

I thought that Jesus was the cousin of John the baptist who was in the blood line of david, it comes from the mother being related to John's mother right?

and abortion sucks, but that's how it goes.

This is a world that kills its own babies. Just because it is small doesn't mean its not a baby. Whether it can feel pain or not seems like a silly issue, Thats like saying its ok to kill a paraplegic because he or she won't feel it. Calling it a fetus is just a way of saying new life child. You were a fetus once... YOU were you only a very small beginning...I just don't get how its not ok to kill a big person but it is ok to kill someone who is microscopic. Its still a kill.

[daddy1gringo]

The abortion issue is not about a woman’s right to choose. Women, and men, have the right to choose many things, but that doesn’t mean that society does not have the right and the responsibility to say that some choices are wrong.

I have a right to choose what I want to do for a living, but if what I want to do for a living is sell crack outside the local high school, or hit people on the head and take the money out of their wallets, society can, and must, say that I may not make these choices because they are wrong. Does a person have the right to do what they want because it concerns their personal reproductive system? I have a personal reproductive system too, but if what I choose to do with it is force it on someone who doesn’t want it, that’s called rape, and yes society can and must forbid it. In all these cases a right to choose is denied because the particular choice violates a more fundamental right of someone else. Society obviously cannot just leave it up to the one who would make the choice.

The whole question hinges on whether (I’ll try to use as neutral as possible a term) the entity being aborted is a human being with a right to life or not. If so, then obviously it is murder, and must be forbidden. If not, although an individual might choose not to abort based on a personal conviction about potentiality, no law could be made concerning that choice.

The problem lies with the fact that it seems ridiculous to draw a line anywhere saying “at this moment a human being, with a right to live, exists, and one nano-second before, it did not,” and both sides of the argument use this factor. Nevertheless we must draw just such a line somewhere. Otherwise you will have to take the argument to one extreme and say that it is murder to abstain from sex, or to the other and say it’s OK to kill your teenager because they didn’t turn out like you wanted. (Hmmmm, maybe,…nah)

We're not talking about when life starts, we're talking about when life becomes sentient life. Dogs are alive, so are cats, amoeba, and skin cells. What the real issue is when does consciousness arise, when does the animal become a person. The sperm and the egg are alive, so why not say that life starts even before the two meet. It's 100% accurate to say that, and its also irrefutable. However, it's inconvenient to your world-view.

If we're going to talk about the soul and not life, we have to talk about sentience. A cluster of 24 cells in a woman's uterus is no more sentient than a mold. A fetus, no larger than a quarter, is not sentient.

When does the sentience form? I don't know, but it's definitely not in the first 13 weeks.
Source: Conjecture based upon rate of fetal growth.

“Sentience” doesn’t work. You yourself say that you have to make a guess at when it starts based on conjecture.

The only clear, non-arbitrary place to make that line is at conception. That is when suddenly and observably, something exists that didn’t exist before. From conception everything that is inherent in the person is already determined. Hair color, fingerprints, congenital conditions, blood type, and let me focus on gender. How can the fetus be just part of the mother’s body if he is male? The DNA is all there, and that is what the legal system uses to identify a person, an individual. Identity.

One can say, “I believe life begins at X point”, but that “belief” is based on what? There exists no argument from physics or metaphysics, logic or medicine, that can so clearly define when a person becomes a person.

Once before, the US Supreme Court decided that certain members of the human race were not really members of the human race and therefore were not entitled to human rights. That was the Dredd Scott decision, and by it many African-Americans lost their right to liberty. What is being denied to a portion of the human race now is the even more fundamental right to life itself. All smokescreens about “rights to choose” aside, society has a mandate to recognize the humanity of the fetus from conception and legislate accordingly in order to protect that right.

In conclusion, I know of several doctors who became pro-life because of situations like the following. In the morning he performs a difficult in utero operation to save the life of an unborn child. In the afternoon he performs an abortion on a fetus of about the same age. The doctor is now faced with the question. “If I saved someone’s life this morning, how can I say I didn’t end someone’s life now, and if I didn’t just end someone’s life, then whose life did I save?”

[got tonkaed]

although you make a lot of good arguments for the pro life case, i think there are defintly a lot of things that can be taken objection with in the argument.

first off, in a very similar way to argument against it being difficult to establish where life begins in the entire life creating process, it is just as arbitrary in practice for society to determine where and when it should be sticking its nose into a persons business. Although we have the methods we have for a while and they are by in large quite effective in many cases, it does by any strectch indiciate that this issue is a clear case for society to step in, in any particular direction.

I think the big argument is that well does the potential child have the right to life. Well i think all things being equal even the pro choicers would like fewer abortions. No one woke up this morning and said, man i hope she chooses to abort the baby, unless there were some incredible extenuating circumstances. However, you could certainly argue that there is in fact situations where things have less right to life than something else. Now ill use the example of animals that are used in the food production of just about everyone seemingly. Those animals can by in large feel pain, and some of the more advanced animals that are hunted or caged can potentially have some concept of self, more so than many humans without complete brain function due to a variety of issues.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be life. Although it may be cold, i dont consider anyone who is "brain dead" or in a vegetative state for the rest of their life to be as valuable as a human who has a more complete vitality and can with their brain function have wants, goals, dreams, so on and so forth. This is because i dont have a religious conception that backs a notion that there is some essence to every human being, which only human beings have. Therefore my line of demarcation is whether or not the human or potential human is a sentient being capable of having all of those wants and dreams and goals, the building blocks for acutally living a life.

Now yes, an aborted fetus (assuming no potential health condition that would prohibit these things) would eventually in all likelyhood have those things. But so does the mother. Even if the child did have a long term health issue, i probably wouldnt want to have it aborted, but using my line of demarcation, something that is not alive does not take precdence of something that is. This is a far less harsh criteria that it will be made out to be, as all the time both animals and humans are deemed to have less of a right to live than another, and they have full capablity of cognition.

Also altough this isnt exactly the most developed point in the world....just because your line of demarcation isnt as arbitary as some (that there isnt complete information for) doesnt make it a complete valid line. Just like wanting something to be true doesnt inherently make it true.

For my money...the real issue of abortion is whether or not you thing there is something bestowed on a potential life from the moment of conception...ie a soul. If you do there is a vested interest in keeping that soul viable and thats understandable. If you do not, then it is regrettable if someone does not want to have their child...but there are just as severe, possibly more severe issues going on with the living already.

[OnlyAmbrose]

first off, in a very similar way to argument against it being difficult to establish where life begins in the entire life creating process, it is just as arbitrary in practice for society to determine where and when it should be sticking its nose into a persons business.

True, but if it is assumed that abortion is murder (which is the pro-life standpoint), then it's very much society's responsibility to stick its nose into a mother's business - just as much as it's the responsibility of society to bring to justice convicted rapists, felons, and, of course, murderers.

However, you could certainly argue that there is in fact situations where things have less right to life than something else. Now ill use the example of animals that are used in the food production of just about everyone seemingly. Those animals can by in large feel pain, and some of the more advanced animals that are hunted or caged can potentially have some concept of self, more so than many humans without complete brain function due to a variety of issues.

Completely different circumstances. Psychology shows (my reference in this case is a book entitled On Killing by Dave Grossman) that killing is perfectly natural when it is done to another species (ie, these animals that are lining up to be slaughtered). However, you cross a big fat line when you move into the killing of someone of your same species. It is an extremely difficult thing to do under most circumstances.

However, the circumstances of abortion make it ridiculously easy. You can't see what you're killing, and even if you could, in many cases you wouldn't be able to recognize it as human. You can psychologically convince yourself that it's not murder.

Anyways, my point here is not "what has a right to live" (though I think it's ridiculous that you're comparing a human child to cattle raised to be slaughtered), but rather, what our basic human psychological design tells us - and certainly, it tells us that the murder of other human beings is a no-no. It's hard-wired into us.

On the larger issue, I think Mother Teresa said it best:

"It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you please."

[vtmarik]

Come on, VT, you're too smart for this. Luke 3:23: "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, son of..." and there follows the genaology. Joseph acknowledged him as his son, adopted him if you will, so any hereditary rights applied.

If he was indeed the Son of God, the lineage does not apply. Lineage is through blood, not by association.

If Jesus is the Son of God, he is not the Son of Joseph and by extension not a descendant of David. If Jesus is the Son of Joseph, then he has a mortal father and thus is not divine, but fulfills the prophecy.


You can't have it both ways here. Either he's a descendant or he isn't.

Example: Robin was more-or-less adopted by Batman. This does not make him a descendant of any of Bruce Wayne's ancestors.

[Aegnor]

Thank god abortion is legal in many countries. That way sane people can get rid of unexpected pregnancies without letting some religious loonies run their lives.

[jay_a2j]

Come on, VT, you're too smart for this. Luke 3:23: "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, son of..." and there follows the genaology. Joseph acknowledged him as his son, adopted him if you will, so any hereditary rights applied.

If he was indeed the Son of God, the lineage does not apply. Lineage is through blood, not by association.

If Jesus is the Son of God, he is not the Son of Joseph and by extension not a descendant of David. If Jesus is the Son of Joseph, then he has a mortal father and thus is not divine, but fulfills the prophecy.


You can't have it both ways here. Either he's a descendant or he isn't.

Example: Robin was more-or-less adopted by Batman. This does not make him a descendant of any of Bruce Wayne's ancestors.

This was explained to me..... Mary was in the bloodline of David. Joseph and Mary were cousins (I don't know how close or distant). Thus, Jesus was descended from David.

[vtmarik]

This was explained to me..... Mary was in the bloodline of David. Joseph and Mary were cousins (I don't know how close or distant). Thus, Jesus was descended from David.

Does this have scriptural backing, is it an Apocryphal text, or is this just some random theory?

One person's theory:
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/mary_and_david.html

Wikipedia's break down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_ ... of_Heli.3F

[daddy1gringo]

Come on, VT, you're too smart for this. Luke 3:23: "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, son of..." and there follows the genaology. Joseph acknowledged him as his son, adopted him if you will, so any hereditary rights applied.

If he was indeed the Son of God, the lineage does not apply. Lineage is through blood, not by association.

If Jesus is the Son of God, he is not the Son of Joseph and by extension not a descendant of David. If Jesus is the Son of Joseph, then he has a mortal father and thus is not divine, but fulfills the prophecy.


You can't have it both ways here. Either he's a descendant or he isn't.

Example: Robin was more-or-less adopted by Batman. This does not make him a descendant of any of Bruce Wayne's ancestors.

Vt,Vt, you're not making sense. IF Jesus is the son of God, God can pass down the mantle of kingship any way he wants.

I was going to bring this up in the last post, but didn't, partly for the sake of length, but partly because it deals with what Jesus says in the bible, and you don't consider that authoritative, but you brought up the "IF Jesus is the son of God"

Once (Matthew 22:42ff) when the religious authorities were challenging Jesus, he said "let me ask you a question, the Messiah (Christos), whose Son is he?" They answered, "The son of David." He said to them, "then how does David, in the Spirit, call him 'Lord' saying: (Psalm 110: 1) 'The Lord said to my Lord, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."' If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?"

Jesus is the Messiah because he is the son of God. There had to be an inheritance of the kingly authority through David but that is most certainly satisfied by his being legally Joseph's son. In some ancient cultures, a natural son could be disinherited if the father chose, but an adopted son could not, because the father had chosen him. The inheritance of authority is the issue. To use your example, the fact that Robin doesn't become a biological descendant is irrelevant. If Bruce puts it in his will, Robin inherits ownwership and control of Wayne Enterprises.

Since you are treating OT prophesy as authoritative as to whether Jesus is the Messiah, try this: Isaiah 49:5-6 "And now the Lord says, Who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel is gathered to him... 'It is too small a thing that you should...raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore...Israel. I will also give you as a light to the gentiles, that you should be my salvation to the ends of the earth.'" a little quiz: The name and word of the God of Israel has been brought to the ends of the earth in the name of what Rabbi?

A. Rabbi Akiva
B. Hillel
C. Gamaliel
D. Moses Maimonides
E. Yeshua of Nazareth

[vtmarik]

Come on, VT, you're too smart for this. Luke 3:23: "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, son of..." and there follows the genaology. Joseph acknowledged him as his son, adopted him if you will, so any hereditary rights applied.

If he was indeed the Son of God, the lineage does not apply. Lineage is through blood, not by association.

If Jesus is the Son of God, he is not the Son of Joseph and by extension not a descendant of David. If Jesus is the Son of Joseph, then he has a mortal father and thus is not divine, but fulfills the prophecy.


You can't have it both ways here. Either he's a descendant or he isn't.

Example: Robin was more-or-less adopted by Batman. This does not make him a descendant of any of Bruce Wayne's ancestors.

Deus Ex Machina

That's not an explanation. "He's the descendant of David because God made it so" is a deflection. Show me the scripture that says God changed the rules for His son, and then I'll buy into it.

What you're basically saying is that the fact that Joseph "adopted" Jesus as his son makes him the next in line for the throne. Where, in scripture, did Joseph officially adopt or name Jesus as his son?

[salvadevinemasse]

Didnt we have a thread on this before that me and Jay loved debating in? lol. Did you all start a new one?

I think only reason a woman should get an abortion is medical reasons.. Other then that if the parents cant take care of the child there are always alternatives.. Why not give the child up for adoption? Or social services ect..
Dont abort the kid as a form of birth control thats just total crap!!

[Aegnor]

Didnt we have a thread on this before that me and Jay loved debating in? lol. Did you all start a new one?

I think only reason a woman should get an abortion is medical reasons.. Other then that if the parents cant take care of the child there are always alternatives.. Why not give the child up for adoption? Or social services ect..
Dont abort the kid as a form of birth control thats just total crap!!

Would you give up sex then? No birth control is 100% fail safe.

[salvadevinemasse]

Didnt we have a thread on this before that me and Jay loved debating in? lol. Did you all start a new one?

I think only reason a woman should get an abortion is medical reasons.. Other then that if the parents cant take care of the child there are always alternatives.. Why not give the child up for adoption? Or social services ect..
Dont abort the kid as a form of birth control thats just total crap!!

Would you give up sex then? No birth control is 100% fail safe.

Your twisting my words.. I didnt say you cant use birth control.. I said dont use abortion as birth control.. condoms and the pill are both acceptable forms of birth control.

[Aegnor]

Didnt we have a thread on this before that me and Jay loved debating in? lol. Did you all start a new one?

I think only reason a woman should get an abortion is medical reasons.. Other then that if the parents cant take care of the child there are always alternatives.. Why not give the child up for adoption? Or social services ect..
Dont abort the kid as a form of birth control thats just total crap!!

Would you give up sex then? No birth control is 100% fail safe.

Your twisting my words.. I didnt say you cant use birth control.. I said dont use abortion as birth control.. condoms and the pill are both acceptable forms of birth control.

I wasn't twisting your words. You misunderstood me. What happens if you were using condoms and pills but you still got pregnant? Sure, there's a very remote chance for that to happen, but the chance exists.

[salvadevinemasse]

Didnt we have a thread on this before that me and Jay loved debating in? lol. Did you all start a new one?

I think only reason a woman should get an abortion is medical reasons.. Other then that if the parents cant take care of the child there are always alternatives.. Why not give the child up for adoption? Or social services ect..
Dont abort the kid as a form of birth control thats just total crap!!

Would you give up sex then? No birth control is 100% fail safe.

Your twisting my words.. I didnt say you cant use birth control.. I said dont use abortion as birth control.. condoms and the pill are both acceptable forms of birth control.

I wasn't twisting your words. You misunderstood me. What happens if you were using condoms and pills but you still got pregnant? Sure, there's a very remote chance for that to happen, but the chance exists.

I'd keep the baby. I'm an adult and sometimes the adult thing to do isn't the easiest but its the one you gotta live with for the rest of your life. I'm a Massage therapist who right now is looking her ass off for a job and thats why it wouldn't be easy if it happened.. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had to give that baby up. I'd be thinking of it everyday and who knows if I'd become an emotional wreck.. It would be hard either way, but I'd rather be with my child then without it. *I love kids in general* My family would help out, and I believe the dad would to. (only one person it could be if it happened, because I don't sleep around.)

Anyways thats my take on it.

[Aegnor]

[
I'd keep the baby. I'm an adult and sometimes the adult thing to do isn't the easiest but its the one you gotta live with for the rest of your life. I'm a Massage therapist who right now is looking her ass off for a job and thats why it wouldn't be easy if it happened.. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had to give that baby up. I'd be thinking of it everyday and who knows if I'd become an emotional wreck.. It would be hard either way, but I'd rather be with my child then without it. *I love kids in general* My family would help out, and I believe the dad would to. (only one person it could be if it happened, because I don't sleep around.)

Anyways thats my take on it.

I liked your answer. I respect your point of view, yet I really hope you don't tend to impose it on other people.

[salvadevinemasse]

[
I'd keep the baby. I'm an adult and sometimes the adult thing to do isn't the easiest but its the one you gotta live with for the rest of your life. I'm a Massage therapist who right now is looking her ass off for a job and thats why it wouldn't be easy if it happened.. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had to give that baby up. I'd be thinking of it everyday and who knows if I'd become an emotional wreck.. It would be hard either way, but I'd rather be with my child then without it. *I love kids in general* My family would help out, and I believe the dad would to. (only one person it could be if it happened, because I don't sleep around.)

Anyways thats my take on it.

I liked your answer. I respect your point of view, yet I really hope you don't tend to impose it on other people.

I'm not going to. Don't Worry.

Everyone is allowed their own point of view and I understand all points to the different ones..

Some are more worried about their parents, or their b/f's and I'm not being mean about it. I just happen to believe the only reason for abortion is if its going to be a medical thing where continuing the pregnancy will kill you or the baby will be still born anyways.. I don't see the need in putting anyone in danger. Thats all.

But I respect and understand that not everyone will have my point of view and I'll never say they are wrong but just that we have different opinions is all.

*salva*

[Aegnor]

Everyone is allowed their own point of view and I understand all points to the different ones..

Some are more worried about their parents, or their b/f's and I'm not being mean about it. I just happen to believe the only reason for abortion is if its going to be a medical thing where continuing the pregnancy will kill you or the baby will be still born anyways.. I don't see the need in putting anyone in danger. Thats all.

But I respect and understand that not everyone will have my point of view and I'll never say they are wrong but just that we have different opinions is all.

*salva*

Sigh.. I wish every debate would end this way.

You sound like an honest and responsible person Salva.

[salvadevinemasse]

Everyone is allowed their own point of view and I understand all points to the different ones..

Some are more worried about their parents, or their b/f's and I'm not being mean about it. I just happen to believe the only reason for abortion is if its going to be a medical thing where continuing the pregnancy will kill you or the baby will be still born anyways.. I don't see the need in putting anyone in danger. Thats all.

But I respect and understand that not everyone will have my point of view and I'll never say they are wrong but just that we have different opinions is all.

*salva*

Sigh.. I wish every debate would end this way.

You sound like an honest and responsible person Salva.

Awwz, Thank you! You sound like a nice person as well!