Abortion: A Sad Reality

[Noomi]

[

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

Why is that relevent in the least?

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

It is inside her body, attached to her body, feeding off her body. How is it NOT her body?

 

[American4Americ]

Although this is a good list of a very small number of people who have abandoned Satan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Protestantism_from_atheism_or_agnosticism

 

[lakeview]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

 

[Kosh]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

So you are saying that the unborn child is like any other part of the body like the appendix or the gal bladder, etc.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

Opinions are overrated. Stop that!

Fixed it for you.

 

[Noomi]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

So you are saying that the unborn child is like any other part of the body like the appendix or the gal bladder, etc.

An appendix doesn't drain the body of nutrients in order to stay alive, does it?

 

[freedombecki]

At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.

Right wingers like to pretend that women who have abortions are all liberal, immoral and killing babies for convenience. All of these assumptions ignore the facts which are that most of the women having abortions are not immoral teenagers, but in fact mature adults, the majority of whom are married or in a committed relationship and poor.

They are not "killing babies" out of convenience, they are terminating unintended pregnancies for reasons because their families cannot, under the current economic conditions for the poor in the USA today, afford to carry, bear or raise that child. Current right wing economic policies are not family friendly in any way and there are no plans for changing that situation anytime soon.

Since most right-wingers are not in favour of mandated maternity leave and guarantees that workers can return to their jobs, and believe that employers should have the right to fire a pregnant worker, it is disingenuous of you to claim to care about the children who are lost due to abortion.

I'm tired of this phony, holier than thou attitude on the part of people who don't support family friendly employment practices. Your insincere moral outrage is disgusting.

No, her words are based on scholarly knowledge of traditional Christian beliefs. In the first century AD, the Didache, manual of Christian discipleship, teaches: "In accordance with the precept of the teaching, 'you shall not kill,' you shall not put a child to death by abortion or kill it once it is born." Justin the Martyr said "We have been taught that it is wicked to expose even newly born children" to die in the elements, for "we would then be murderers."

The book of Deuteronomy in the 30th chapter culminates in this thought: "Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live!"

Here's an historical incident that shows killing the innocent goes with the territory of a lack of moral conscience:

In pre-war Germany there was a permissive attitude towards euthanasia. There was an effort, led by Dr Karl Brandt, to eliminate the mentally and physically defective from the population. This programme put to death 275,000 people. In the light of the revelations at the Nuremberg trials, the BMA in 1947 issued a statement which could well be reissued today:

[SIZE=-1]The doctors who were guilty of these crimes against humanity lacked both the moral and professional conscience that is to be expected of members of this honourable profession. The spirit of the Hippocratic oath cannot change and must be reaffirmed by the profession. It enjoins the duty of caring, the greatest crime being cooperation in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion.[/SIZE]
​

Living in a World where Life is Cheap. The Relevance of the Book of Deuteronomy and the Sixth Commandment for the Debate on the Sanctity of Human Life
​

Abortion cheapens life. It's just that simple.

 

[lakeview]

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

Facts are overrated. Stop that!

Opinions are overrated. Stop that!

Fixed it for you.

btw TK, I noticed you dangling from PC's balls and sucking up to g5000 when he was accusing me of being the one who was pushing the exceptions for rape and incest. Way to stand up for yourself bud. I noticed you've been strangely silent since they entered the thread and don't seem to want to assert yourself anymore regarding your "limits". Yep, your opinion means an awful lot...

 

[auditor0007]

The biggest argument over abortion isn't whether or not it's okay to kill a human being. The biggest argument over abortion is at what time "life begins". Those on the far right seem to believe life begins at conception. Those on the far left seem to believe life begins when a fetus can live independently of the mother's womb. What moderates on both sides are doing is trying to come to a compromise as to when it's okay to have an abortion. The loud minority on the left and right are only muddying the water, and creating more division than is needed.

Those on the right want to tell a woman she must have that baby, and then when she does and cannot support it, they call her a welfare leech. The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Allow me to add a political argument:

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.


2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.
On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.

From “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

Abortion was legal in the colonies at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is absurd to somehow assume that none of the founders knew that.

That fact is btw taken into account in Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions.

The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652. Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify. A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby. Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder. Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children." "Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History


Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America by Marvin Olasky

You've obviously never even read Roe v Wade.

 

[lakeview]

The biggest argument over abortion isn't whether or not it's okay to kill a human being. The biggest argument over abortion is at what time "life begins". Those on the far right seem to believe life begins at conception. Those on the far left seem to believe life begins when a fetus can live independently of the mother's womb. What moderates on both sides are doing is trying to come to a compromise as to when it's okay to have an abortion. The loud minority on the left and right are only muddying the water, and creating more division than is needed.

Those on the right want to tell a woman she must have that baby, and then when she does and cannot support it, they call her a welfare leech. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Exactly. I am so sick and tired of seeing some people argue that funding planned parenthood is welfare and then making the argument that welfare is broken because it encourages women to have children. wtf?

 

[American4Americ]

The biggest argument over abortion isn't whether or not it's okay to kill a human being. The biggest argument over abortion is at what time "life begins". Those on the far right seem to believe life begins at conception. Those on the far left seem to believe life begins when a fetus can live independently of the mother's womb. What moderates on both sides are doing is trying to come to a compromise as to when it's okay to have an abortion. The loud minority on the left and right are only muddying the water, and creating more division than is needed.

Those on the right want to tell a woman she must have that baby, and then when she does and cannot support it, they call her a welfare leech. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Exactly. I am so sick and tired of seeing some people argue that funding planned parenthood is welfare and then making the argument that welfare is broken because it encourages women to have children. wtf?

Just eliminate welfare & planned parenthood.

Problem solved with billions of dollars saved!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"Her body. Her decision."


No it isn't.


Unless you can explain how 'her body' can have two different sets of fingerprints, and two different blood types.

Why is that relevent in the least?

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

As long as a fetus does not possess personhood under the law, a woman's right to property prevails.

Her person is her property, and a fetus is part of her person.

 

[lakeview]

Just eliminate welfare & planned parenthood.

Problem solved with billions of dollars saved!

I agree with this for the most part. The safety net is needlessly complicated and the cost of an abortion is not prohibitive.

 

[clevergirl]

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.

Except that it is not separate. It is attached to her body. If it was separate, it wouldn't need to be attached her via the umbilical cord, would it?

No, the baby is attached to the placenta it created in order to sustain itself in the womb. For someone so determined to kill unborn babies you sure show an enormous amount of biological ignorance.... just sayin'

 

[Vandalshandle]

"These rights don't come from government. They come from God. "

You don't have to look very far to find the flaw in your argument.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no God, and no God given rights.

 

[clevergirl]

At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.

Right wingers like to pretend that women who have abortions are all liberal, immoral and killing babies for convenience. All of these assumptions ignore the facts which are that most of the women having abortions are not immoral teenagers, but in fact mature adults, the majority of whom are married or in a committed relationship and poor.

They are not "killing babies" out of convenience, they are terminating unintended pregnancies for reasons because their families cannot, under the current economic conditions for the poor in the USA today, afford to carry, bear or raise that child. Current right wing economic policies are not family friendly in any way and there are no plans for changing that situation anytime soon.

Since most right-wingers are not in favour of mandated maternity leave and guarantees that workers can return to their jobs, and believe that employers should have the right to fire a pregnant worker, it is disingenuous of you to claim to care about the children who are lost due to abortion.

I'm tired of this phony, holier than thou attitude on the part of people who don't support family friendly employment practices. Your insincere moral outrage is disgusting.

The most common age of women seeking abortions are 20 to 24 year old women. Most are unmarried.

Again the idea that "convenience" is a term that is uncomfortable is on purpose. All the reasons you enumerated, when stripped down, lay bare the essential fact that it is about the convenience of the mother for whatever reason.

This does not mean that there should not be compassion. What is typically the underpinning rational of an unwanted pregnancy are a woman's economic circumstances; her age; the timing or all these issues...but you shouldn't get to kill another human being just because it's bad timing or that your young and broke.

Fight for family leave- but that is a separate issue from killing an unborn baby because its unwanted- It's not "holier than thou" to want to save babies,it's a passionate desire to save babies from death.

You don't want a baby put it up for adoption. You don't want to get pregnant practice abstinence and or use birth control properly...certainly women can sacrifice 9 months before allowing a baby to have a lifetime themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

The most common age of women seeking abortions are 20 to 24 year old women. Most are unmarried.

From the link you posted:

32% of women seeking abortions were 20 to 24 years of age, 25% were 25 to 29 years old. Only 15% were teenagers. 60% of the women seeking abortions had one of more live children. The figures also said that only 15% of the women were married, but these figures did not differentiate women living in a committed relationship with a partner outside of marriage. Other studies I've seen indicate that more than half of the women seeking abortions are married or living in a committed relationship.

My objection to the use of "convenience" is not because this word makes me uncomfortable, but because it's not true. The pregnancy is not "inconvenient", it puts the children and the family at risk. The risk of losing one's job, home and the ability to provide for your family is not an inconvenience, it's a horror.

Right wingers use the term convenience to make it easier to condemn the woman for making a difficult choice. It's to make YOU feel better about opposing the abortion because it wasn't necessary, it was convenient.

If you really are passionate about wanting to save babies, then make it easier for women to have and care for the children. Don't force them to risk the health and well being of their exisiting families in order to carry the child to term.

You continue to want to ignore the economic realities of the working poor in order to continue to condemn these women for their choice in terminating a pregnancy so YOU make it easy for yourself to ignore the real reasons for their choices.

I repeat: countries with a strong social safety net, mandated maternity leave and job guarantees have much lower abortion rates than the US, even though there are fewer restrictions on abortion than in the US. Obviously women will choose to have babies, if their existing families are not being put at risk by doing so.

Ignoring these facts won't make them go away. Blaming these women for choosing to terminate their pregnancies, and making it more difficult to obtain an abortion, won't change their choices.

 

[MsAnthrope]

Don't pretend to be any more ignorant than you are.

How could it be her body?



Clearly, different fingerprints, different blood type....

....and guess what: different DNA.


Not the same person....is it.



I dare you to answer that.

Guess what, she throws it out of her body in the first two trimesters-

IT DIES!!!!!!!

Which makes it her body, her choice. Period.

By avoiding the question, I'll assume you have no way to dispute the fact that the baby is clearly not.....as you claimed....'her body.'


This is not about when or if the separate individual can survive. We'll leave up to medical science.

My point....proven....is that she is killing a discrete individual.....a separate entity.





At this point you can choose any of the moral, legal, or political arguments in the thread....

...but the truth is that the most attractive aspect of Liberalism....for many folks....is that you can create a private morality that excuses any behavior.

Including killing a baby for convenience.



My work here is done.

I thought you right wingers were against being mandated to being responsible for others, separate entities? You don't want others leeching off of you against your will, no?

 

[MsAnthrope]

And if these were actually "babies", who cares what percentage of abortions they make? Even one death of these innocent "babies", regardless of the method of conception, should be unacceptable. Should the offspring be responsible for its parents "sins"?
If you concede that those conceived via rape or incest are sacrificial and an acceptable loss, they do not have rights. Which is it?
If you sympathize with the mother, her rights are superior to the unborn. If she MUST carry to term, (unless, in your perception, it's a no fault conception) it is a punishment for her sexuality.