Abortion is murder

[Divine Wind]

You know I'm going to want you to prove that, don't you?

All religions, including atheism, recognize that "nature" is a term for the all powerful forces within our Universe. Pantheists, panentheists, Zen buddhists, etc all accept that there is a power and, to a large extent, we are all part of that power.

So the real differences are 1) what do we call this power and 2) what characteristics we apply to it. Christians, for example, believe in a "personal" God where good people who pray hard enough can get a bicycle for Christmas or a better job. Fundamentalist Muslims believe God will give them the power to slay infidels and reward them with 72 virgins in Heaven if they die as martyrs. Pantheists, panentheists, Zen buddhists and the like believe we just become part of the Universe and, possibly, part of the great beyond.

The fact remains "nature" is a hard set of rules within a defined system. Just because we don't know all the rules doesn't mean those rules don't exist. There are "natural" reasons why babies are stillborn or pregnancies self-abort. Some are definable. Others are not. Why? I don't know. Can we ever know? Probably, but who can say for sure?

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually god is the antithesis of nature. If one does what comes naturally they will be doomed to hell fire:

Disagreed. God is nature because God created everything within the Universe. To study science is to study the divine because understanding God's creation brings one closer to understanding God.

According to Christian religion, people have free agency. A free choice to stay within God's grace, God's light or to run off into the darkness just like one of God's other creations, Lucifer. Nonetheless, all are God's creations just like our Universe and all of nature.

Edit: from a religious perspective it's more correct to say nature is part of God since God is greater than the Universe. There should be no doubt nature is God's creation and, therefore, "is" God from that perspective.

 

[Faun]

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

I got that. But you are saying in this thread that since it is lawful to end the life of a baby in the womb it is ok. I am merely trying to understand if that same logic would apply to slavery. Do you just blindly agree with everything your government tells you?

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery comparison is useless as you can apply that to anything. Such as ... the SCOTUS says murder is illegal, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time. They say marriage is a right, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time.

So where it stands as that we, as a society determine what is and is not murder, the illegal killing of another human being. And our society, at this time, decides abortion is not murder.

Personally, I'm against abortion and I'm thankful my wife did not have one when she suffered a serious complication while carrying one of our kids, when abortion was an option; who is, thank G-d, alive and healthy.

But I don't impose my beliefs on others when our society decides abortion is not murder.

No. They ruled on slavery only one time. It took the 13th Amendment to reverse it and then the 14th and 15th Amendment to force the Democrats to treat them as citizens. I'm happy for you and your wife, but the reality is that morals are not relative. Slavery was wrong then. It was always wrong and it will always be wrong. Same thing goes for abortion. Mind you I am not advocating for making abortion illegal, I am advocating that we stop pretending like it is a good thing. I am advocating that we admit that we are ending a human life, most of the time for selfish reasons and that we stop rationalizing that we aren't violating the Law of Right and Wrong. Apparently, I am asking for too much.

I couldn't help to see how you spelled God. There was a time when Jews were not seen as human beings either and we know what happened to them. I don't see any difference here.I wonder what would have happened back then if people had spoken out against it?

One othe thing to think about, if abortion is not morally wrong, then forced abortions for the good of the country or the world would also not be morally wrong. Normalization of deviance is a slippery slope.

I feel nothing but sympathy for those who can't see the difference between this...

... and this ...

 

[The Great Goose]

No, it isn't. Abortion is akin to removing a cancerous tumor. It has all the markers and DNA of a sentient independent human being. But it ISN'T, a undeveloped fetus is just a mass of cells. Just like cancer cells. Do cancer cells have the same religious right to life, too? They are just as human and god created them, too. This is silly. And, god let Jesus die on the cross, his only begotten son. God dosen't seem to have problem killing his son. Um, what do we mortals take away from THAT?

Science tells us otherwise.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner,

You may post this as often as you like, it doesn’t change the fact that abortion is not ‘murder.’

You’re at liberty to believe that abortion is the immoral taking of a human life, but it is not the illegal taking of a person’s life.

Hi Clayton.

I know you don't really mean that because you are really nice

 

[Campbell]

Actually god is the antithesis of nature. If one does what comes naturally they will be doomed to hell fire:

Disagreed. God is nature because God created everything within the Universe. To study science is to study the divine because understanding God's creation brings one closer to understanding God.

According to Christian religion, people have free agency. A free choice to stay within God's grace, God's light or to run off into the darkness just like one of God's other creations, Lucifer. Nonetheless, all are God's creations just like our Universe and all of nature.

Edit: from a religious perspective it's more correct to say nature is part of God since God is greater than the Universe. There should be no doubt nature is God's creation and, therefore, "is" God from that perspective.

Actually god is the antithesis of nature. If one does what comes naturally they will be doomed to hell fire:

Disagreed. God is nature because God created everything within the Universe. To study science is to study the divine because understanding God's creation brings one closer to understanding God.

According to Christian religion, people have free agency. A free choice to stay within God's grace, God's light or to run off into the darkness just like one of God's other creations, Lucifer. Nonetheless, all are God's creations just like our Universe and all of nature.

Edit: from a religious perspective it's more correct to say nature is part of God since God is greater than the Universe. There should be no doubt nature is God's creation and, therefore, "is" God from that perspective.

It's all a very large crock of shit fabricated by smart, devious men in order to con folks out of 10% of their worth. What a bunch of dumbasses!

 

[ding]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Yes. All life does begin at conception because it does meet the definition of a living thing.

 

[ding]

when does DNA tell us when a new human being is created?

It doesn't. Now you know.

Ok, then. The answer to your question is moot.

When do you believe a human being is created if it is not when he meets the scientific definition of life and has the DNA of a unique and distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again?

When it's born. Until then, I believe that's what's known as a fetus. Is it not?

That is totally against what science teaches.

As well, spontaneous abortion and stillbirth... are part of nature.

Sure, but before they aborted or died in the womb, they were alive and living human beings. So what is your point?

 

[ding]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

“Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.” Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

 

[ding]

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Wrong.

Again, this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Those subject to slavery were persons, an embryo/fetus is not a person.

What do you call it when one human being premeditatedly takes the life of another human life? And before you give me some legal mumbo jumbo, let me remind you that SCOTUS has ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Someone executed on death row has their life premeditatedly taken by another human being.

That's not murder either.

It is to me. You got anything else?

Don't need anything else as it doesn't matter what it means to you.

Words have meaning.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another human being's life.

Abortion, in cases where it's legal -- is not murder. And it doesn't become murder because some morons want to call it that.

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

Wrong.

Again, this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Those subject to slavery were persons, an embryo/fetus is not a person.

DNA says it is a specific person or is DNA not used to identify persons in a court of law?

 

[ding]

Actually god is the antithesis of nature. If one does what comes naturally they will be doomed to hell fire:

Disagreed. God is nature because God created everything within the Universe. To study science is to study the divine because understanding God's creation brings one closer to understanding God.

According to Christian religion, people have free agency. A free choice to stay within God's grace, God's light or to run off into the darkness just like one of God's other creations, Lucifer. Nonetheless, all are God's creations just like our Universe and all of nature.

Edit: from a religious perspective it's more correct to say nature is part of God since God is greater than the Universe. There should be no doubt nature is God's creation and, therefore, "is" God from that perspective.

Actually god is the antithesis of nature. If one does what comes naturally they will be doomed to hell fire:

Disagreed. God is nature because God created everything within the Universe. To study science is to study the divine because understanding God's creation brings one closer to understanding God.

According to Christian religion, people have free agency. A free choice to stay within God's grace, God's light or to run off into the darkness just like one of God's other creations, Lucifer. Nonetheless, all are God's creations just like our Universe and all of nature.

Edit: from a religious perspective it's more correct to say nature is part of God since God is greater than the Universe. There should be no doubt nature is God's creation and, therefore, "is" God from that perspective.

It's all a very large crock of shit fabricated by smart, devious men in order to con folks out of 10% of their worth. What a bunch of dumbasses!

Putting religion and faith aside. From a purely scientific standard, when does DNA tell us when a new human being is created?

Don't be afraid to answer. Speak up. Just blurt it right out.

I am trying to prove a point that atheists worship science but are the first to reject it. Please don't disappoint me.

 

[Faun]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

It's still not murder.

 

[ding]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

It's still not murder.

And blacks were not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner even though the law said that too was legal, right?

 

[Faun]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

It's still not murder.

And blacks were not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner even though the law said that too was legal, right?

So? Laws change. There was a time abortion was illegal.

 

[Mudda]

It doesn't. Now you know.

Ok, then. The answer to your question is moot.

When do you believe a human being is created if it is not when he meets the scientific definition of life and has the DNA of a unique and distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again?

When it's born. Until then, I believe that's what's known as a fetus. Is it not?

That is totally against what science teaches.

As well, spontaneous abortion and stillbirth... are part of nature.

Sure, but before they aborted or died in the womb, they were alive and living human beings. So what is your point?

So they were live human beings and then jumped back in the womb? Were you home schooled?

 

[ding]

I see. You are a moral relativist. As long as it is lawful, you are ok with it. Slavery was lawful at one time too. Had you been around back then would you stll have the same opinion. I mean after all, SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

I got that. But you are saying in this thread that since it is lawful to end the life of a baby in the womb it is ok. I am merely trying to understand if that same logic would apply to slavery. Do you just blindly agree with everything your government tells you?

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery comparison is useless as you can apply that to anything. Such as ... the SCOTUS says murder is illegal, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time. They say marriage is a right, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time.

So where it stands as that we, as a society determine what is and is not murder, the illegal killing of another human being. And our society, at this time, decides abortion is not murder.

Personally, I'm against abortion and I'm thankful my wife did not have one when she suffered a serious complication while carrying one of our kids, when abortion was an option; who is, thank G-d, alive and healthy.

But I don't impose my beliefs on others when our society decides abortion is not murder.

No. They ruled on slavery only one time. It took the 13th Amendment to reverse it and then the 14th and 15th Amendment to force the Democrats to treat them as citizens. I'm happy for you and your wife, but the reality is that morals are not relative. Slavery was wrong then. It was always wrong and it will always be wrong. Same thing goes for abortion. Mind you I am not advocating for making abortion illegal, I am advocating that we stop pretending like it is a good thing. I am advocating that we admit that we are ending a human life, most of the time for selfish reasons and that we stop rationalizing that we aren't violating the Law of Right and Wrong. Apparently, I am asking for too much.

I couldn't help to see how you spelled God. There was a time when Jews were not seen as human beings either and we know what happened to them. I don't see any difference here.I wonder what would have happened back then if people had spoken out against it?

One othe thing to think about, if abortion is not morally wrong, then forced abortions for the good of the country or the world would also not be morally wrong. Normalization of deviance is a slippery slope.

I feel nothing but sympathy for those who can't see the difference between this...

... and this ...

Ending any human life for selfish reasons is wrong.

 

[ding]

.
the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

It's still not murder.

And blacks were not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner even though the law said that too was legal, right?

So? Laws change. There was a time abortion was illegal.

Sure. laws change. Right and wrong doesn't.

 

[jillian]

after it takes it's first breath outside the womb

a seed is not a tree

an embryo is no a person

a woman's body is her own ........... always

her life and her needs take priority over an embryo/fetus

DISGUSTING!! What Hillary Did While Pregnant With Chelsea Should ...
www.angrypatriotmovement.com/what-pregnant-hillary-did/
5 days ago - A book by one of Bill Clinton's friends, a former Miss Arkansas and possible ... retardkilled,” the former pageant queen, Sally Miller, claimed Hillary ... “Hillary is using the same old 'playbook' from the nineties—to threaten me.
Former Bill Mistress: Hillary Beat Baby Inside Womb, Threatened to ...
www.infowars.com/former-bill-mistress-hillary-beat-baby-inside-womb-thr...
Alex Jones
4 days ago - US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once attempted to harm the baby inside her womb and then promised she would kill it if it were born disfigured, an excerpt ... Go Unpublished,” the former Miss Arkansas reveals the time former President Bill .... So she gave Chelsea her first beating while still in her?
BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Forced Bill's Mistresses Into Doing The ...
https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-hillary-clinton-forced-bills-mistresses-into...
3 days ago - Miller, a former Miss Arkansas beauty queen, also has a tell-all book entitled ... fist whilethreatening Bill that she would kill his child (Chelsea).
Former Miss Arkansas Says Hillary Clinton Had Multiple Abortions ...
usbacklash.org/former-miss-arkansas-says-hillary-clinton-multiple-abortions-kept-chelse...
Mar 29, 2016 - Former Miss Arkansas and alleged lover of Bill Clinton, Sally Miller, says Hillary ... “She had several abortions before she had Chelsea and it was only because .... Refuse to Remove Hate Filled “I Want to Fucking Kill Donald Trump” ... By 33 Men Now Getting Death Threats Through Hate-Filled Facebook ...


perhaps some women are just not meant to be a parent at particular times in their life

it should be at the right time and when full of love, when she is physically and emotionally ready

no one cares what your religious beliefs tell you.

if you don't believe in reproductive choice, don't have an abortion....

oh wait... you can't ...

and why does anyone wallow in the fillth of infowars and have the nerve to preach to anyone else.

loser.

 

[ding]

Ok, then. The answer to your question is moot.

When do you believe a human being is created if it is not when he meets the scientific definition of life and has the DNA of a unique and distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again?

When it's born. Until then, I believe that's what's known as a fetus. Is it not?

That is totally against what science teaches.

As well, spontaneous abortion and stillbirth... are part of nature.

Sure, but before they aborted or died in the womb, they were alive and living human beings. So what is your point?

So they were live human beings and then jumped back in the womb? Were you home schooled?

No. They were fully human at conception. They possessed all of the attributes that human beings should possess at that stage of their human life cycle. They are distinct human beings who have never existed before and will never exist again. You are dehumanizing them in your rationalization that it is right to end their lives. It isn't.

 

[jillian]

The slavery thread is over yonder -->

This is the abortion thread.

I got that. But you are saying in this thread that since it is lawful to end the life of a baby in the womb it is ok. I am merely trying to understand if that same logic would apply to slavery. Do you just blindly agree with everything your government tells you?

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery comparison is useless as you can apply that to anything. Such as ... the SCOTUS says murder is illegal, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time. They say marriage is a right, but is it? After all, they ruled in favor of slavery at one time.

So where it stands as that we, as a society determine what is and is not murder, the illegal killing of another human being. And our society, at this time, decides abortion is not murder.

Personally, I'm against abortion and I'm thankful my wife did not have one when she suffered a serious complication while carrying one of our kids, when abortion was an option; who is, thank G-d, alive and healthy.

But I don't impose my beliefs on others when our society decides abortion is not murder.

No. They ruled on slavery only one time. It took the 13th Amendment to reverse it and then the 14th and 15th Amendment to force the Democrats to treat them as citizens. I'm happy for you and your wife, but the reality is that morals are not relative. Slavery was wrong then. It was always wrong and it will always be wrong. Same thing goes for abortion. Mind you I am not advocating for making abortion illegal, I am advocating that we stop pretending like it is a good thing. I am advocating that we admit that we are ending a human life, most of the time for selfish reasons and that we stop rationalizing that we aren't violating the Law of Right and Wrong. Apparently, I am asking for too much.

I couldn't help to see how you spelled God. There was a time when Jews were not seen as human beings either and we know what happened to them. I don't see any difference here.I wonder what would have happened back then if people had spoken out against it?

One othe thing to think about, if abortion is not morally wrong, then forced abortions for the good of the country or the world would also not be morally wrong. Normalization of deviance is a slippery slope.

I feel nothing but sympathy for those who can't see the difference between this...

Ending any human life for selfish reasons is wrong.

in your opinion.

this isn't about your OPINION... its about what government has the right to do....
i love when theocrats think gubmint is supposed to tell women what to do.

you can always live in iran if you want to live in a theocracy.

 

[ding]

.

Now, why is it that you don't believe human life begins at conception?

the point people are trying to make with you is that all life begins at conception, or is there a difference with you ...

.

Agreed, but it's a lie he keeps pushing. I've agreed with him several times about this point then asked him to prove a zygote is a human being. He dodges the answer (just like he dodges questions about his dislike of the US military) then goes back to falsely accusing those who disagree with him for not being "scientific" and not believing human life begins at conception. Like PC, I think he's a bit of a whackadoodle....which would explain why he couldn't get in the military even if he tried.

I did prove that science has determined that a zygote is a human being. You refused to accept the evidence.

It's still not murder.

Not according to the laws today. That still does not make it the right thing to do.