Abortion And The BIBLE

[Lursa]

That would, and should be the question asked by the....................................... fetus!

Right to life
The right to life is the belief that a being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity including government. The concept of a right to life arises in debates on issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia, police brutality, justifiable homicide, and animal rights. Various individuals may disagree on which areas this principle applies, including such issues previously listed.

Right to life - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

UNBELIEVABLE!

Your definition doesnt even mention humans It's intentional so that they can post it without being specific.

Note the text I colored blue in your quote. Thus, you fail again. Esp when you suggest that a fetus can ask anything

Once again, in case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.

 

[Lursa]

Protecting a person's right to sin is always immoral...

The Constitution is not about morality, it's about rights...2 separate things...

As usual, you are incapable of answering direct questions with anything appropriate. Try again?

They arent separate. Is a right to life immoral? Is a right to personal liberty immoral? Is protecting those things immoral?

In case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.
​

 

[Lursa]

My position is about the value of the unborn, a woman's value does not trump, they're equal

Thank you for a direct and civil reply.

You may personally feel that way however they cannot be treated equally. Not practically, not morally, and not legally. Thus since we have a Const and laws that protect women AND laws would be needed to deny women abortions, we have to address the legality of abortion. SCOTUS has, and based their opinion on the Const. Denial of abortions would violate many of women's rights and the unborn have no rights to violate. (See the 14th Amendment)

As such, you personally, dont get to force your opinions and certainly not your religious beliefs on women that do not believe the same.

Pro-choice means that each woman may choose according to her beliefs. Isnt that fair? No woman is forced to have an abortion and no woman is forced to give birth.

The Const protects us from your religious beliefs.

Start a thread somewhere else about the woman's movement. Your spelling of isn't is wrong. [/I]

Not interested. You may feel free to do so.

IMHO a woman does not own the human being inside of her, your a guardian slash nurturer not a judge. I'm all for the woman's fight for equality in a male dominated world, however, when it comes to the unborn
your missing the mark.

Your opinion is noted. But please explain why you believe you are entitled to force it on women that do not agree with you?

Just IMO, I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. No one else has to agree with that either but I believe it is moral AND Constitutional. The horrors of forcing women to suffer pain and health damage and possibly die, to suffer the disrespect of an entire society as 2nd class citizens again if our rights were superseded by protecting the unborn at our expense? That would be unconscionable and certainly no moral High Ground.[/i]

 

[gboisjo]

Your opinion is noted. But please explain why you believe you are entitled to force it on women that do not agree with you?

Just IMO, I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. No one else has to agree with that either but I believe it is moral AND Constitutional. The horrors of forcing women to suffer pain and health damage and possibly die, to suffer the disrespect of an entire society as 2nd class citizens again if our rights were superseded by protecting the unborn at our expense? That would be unconscionable and certainly no moral High Ground.

For me science makes it perfectly clear, the unborn are human beings in the early stages of life. The more modern a society becomes the more likely abortion becomes an option. No other
animal ..that's a mother ..kills its own young.

The good news is this ..Caucasians have zeroed out, more are dying than being born. Successful white women are waiting and in some cases not having children at all. The downside to less children
whether it be by abortion or success means less kin. Perpetuating the species is a natural need more important than food.

 

[Lursa]

For me science makes it perfectly clear, the unborn are human beings in the early stages of life. .

As already explained, science is objective and applies no value to anything. The unborn human is no more valuable than the adult human. Nor is a human any more or less valuable than a cat or a deer. And we kill deer all the time.

The more modern a society becomes the more likely abortion becomes an option.

You have yet to explain why 'society' should be concerned about abortion. Can you do so? There are no negative effects of abortion "on society". If you believe there are, please list some?

No other animal ..that's a mother ..kills its own young.

This is untrue. My first Bachelor of Science is in Natural Resource Management and I studied a great deal of biology and zoology. In times of great stress, disaster, or resource shortages, females of different species may abort, adsorb (spelled correctly) embryos, or kill their young. This is because natural selection is for the individual most likely to survive and pass on their genes. The reproducing female is selected for because she has survived to adult hood and is a proven producer. Infants and juveniles have a much higher mortality rate.

The good news is this ..Caucasians have zeroed out, more are dying than being born. Successful white women are waiting and in some cases not having children at all.

I have no idea why you are discussing race here and would need to see data on what you're posting but I doubt we'd be in agreement as to needing 'more' white people.

The downside to less children whether it be by abortion or success means less kin. Perpetuating the species is a natural need more important than food.

The human race is in no danger of extinction due to lack of breeding. I'd also want to see data on that.

 

[Daisy]

​

As usual, you are incapable of answering direct questions with anything appropriate. Try again?​

​

They arent separate. Is a right to life immoral? Is a right to personal liberty immoral? Is protecting those things immoral?​

​

In case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.​

​

Don't bother repeating yourself, I ignored you the 1st time...

 

[Lursa]

​

As usual, you are incapable of answering direct questions with anything appropriate. Try again?​

​

They arent separate. Is a right to life immoral? Is a right to personal liberty immoral? Is protecting those things immoral?​

​

In case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.​

​

Don't bother repeating yourself, I ignored you the 1st time...

And yet, here you are. Replying AND once again, failing to make any argument.

You seem to want to advertise your failure.

 

[Daisy]

And yet, here you are. Replying AND once again, failing to make any argument.

You seem to want to advertise your failure.

Only because you're starved for attention by quoting my same post twice...thought I'd oblige you...

 

[Lursa]

As usual, you are incapable of answering direct questions with anything appropriate. Try again?

They arent separate. Is a right to life immoral? Is a right to personal liberty immoral? Is protecting those things immoral?

In case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.

Only because you're starved for attention by quoting my same post twice...thought I'd oblige you...

And yet, here you are. Replying AND once again, failing to make any argument.

You seem to want to advertise your failure.

I am here for discussion.

 

[Daisy]

And yet, here you are. Replying AND once again, failing to make any argument.

You seem to want to advertise your failure.

I am here for discussion.

Don't lie...you are here to argue...

 

[Lursa]

​

As usual, you are incapable of answering direct questions with anything appropriate. Try again?​

​

They arent separate. Is a right to life immoral? Is a right to personal liberty immoral? Is protecting those things immoral?​

​

In case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.​

​

Don't lie...you are here to argue...

Oh my...*sigh* discussion and debate are made up of "arguments."

No wonder you never get it right

I am here for discussion.

 

[tosca1]

Your definition doesnt even mention humans It's intentional so that they can post it without being specific.

Note the text I colored blue in your quote. Thus, you fail again. Esp when you suggest that a fetus can ask anything

Once again, in case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.

I'm just stating what RIGHT TO LIFE means!

Whatever your belief is, the right to life means that, "a being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity
including government." Lol......that "being," may even mean women! Pro-choice women!


I don't have to say I talk about humans in particular!
That goes without saying - since we're talking about abortion of a human child - created by human parents!

 

[tosca1]

You demonstrate grave ignorance of our country, the Constitution, and rights. I am not confused but you are poorly educated on this subject.

The unborn have no rights and this is supported in the Constitution. See the 1st section of the 14th Amendment. Even besides the Constitution, no human rights organizations...national or international...recognize rights for the unborn (aside from religious ones).

If you want to get back to the Christian religion, well, I've posted that proof too, that God values women more than the unborn (not equally). Your denials illustrate a common symptom of extreme religious indoctrination which blinds people to reality and truth.

Well, you're the one who isn't informed. The unborn have rights - how much rights they have, depends on states in the USA.

And, you're ignorant of the fact that this isn't all about religion. Many Atheists and Humanists groups are also pro-life!
They see abortion as a gross violation of human rights - as it should be............... because, it is!

Anyway - nothing is for certain yet since there are challenges being made to RvW.
It's been so politicized - so, anything goes.

 

[gboisjo]

As already explained, science is objective and applies no value to anything. The unborn human is no more valuable than the adult human. Nor is a human any more or less valuable than a cat or a deer. And we kill deer all the time.

Science in itself is objective, however, the human who is observing the facts and information can take it in with feeling and that can effect value. I value the unborn because of what I learned through science.

IMHO science trumps politics even if it relates to the constitution which has been brought up as some kind of an argument for abortion. The baby of five weeks in the womb differs from the newborn, but so does the toddler differ from the teen. Scientifically, we pass through different stages as we grow, but we don't pass from person to non-person, or vice versa. For me this is not only science, its simple common sense.

 

[Lursa]

Science in itself is objective, however, the human who is observing the facts and information can take it in with feeling and that can effect value. I value the unborn because of what I learned through science.

Of course, everyone can decide for themselves.

I learned about unborn AND born thru science. Those things only partially inform my moral stance on abortion, since I keep in mind pain and suffering and the disrespect/loss of health, opportunities, etc that women do suffer when denied their need for an abortion...both on an individual basis and then how it affects us all societally to disrespect women like that...and to be willing to use force of law to demand women suffer that pain and suffering and disrespect. I see that as very immoral. How do you justify it, if you do?

IMHO science trumps politics even if it relates to the constitution which has been brought up as some kind of an argument for abortion. The baby of five weeks in the womb differs from the newborn, but so does the toddler differ from the teen. Scientifically, we pass through different stages as we grow, but we don't pass from person to non-person, or vice versa. For me this is not only science, its simple common sense.

Again...the science is equally unconcerned about the lives of any living thing, and at any stage. If you want to go with the science, then you would have to be against killing all animals. Are you? Because 'science' makes no value distinctions between born and unborn.

And I did explain to you why natural selection DOES invest in the born females instead of the much more vulnerable offspring. Why didnt you address that at all? You dont even acknowledge it.

So really it comes down to, 'why' do you value the unborn more than women? They cannot be treated equally in any practical sense, not morally and not legally. If you disagree, please explain.

You didnt answer any of my questions in post 280. Why not? Please do so, as they enable the discussion to go forward, in explaining your views and arguments. You made a claim about abortion and society and you didnt answer: what negative affects does abortion have on society? I know of none but if you disagree, please list some.

 

[Lursa]

I'm just stating what RIGHT TO LIFE means!

Whatever your belief is, the right to life means that, "a being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity
including government." Lol......that "being," may even mean women! Pro-choice women!

That is just your opinion of a 'right to life.' It is one definition and as a definition, the red text needs to be prefaced with: a 'right to life' is the belief that.....

In America and for every national and international human rights organization (non-religiously based)...that definition does not include the unborn. If you disagree, prove it, link to it.

I don't have to say I talk about humans in particular!
That goes without saying - since we're talking about abortion of a human child - created by human parents!

Just dont forget:

Once again, in case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.

 

[Lursa]

Well, you're the one who isn't informed. The unborn have rights - how much rights they have, depends on states in the USA.

Prove it. Link to some examples.

And nowhere do those 'rights' supersede a woman's rights and in every single case, women in every state are allowed abortions...the supposed 'rights' you claim do not supersede that either.

And, you're ignorant of the fact that this isn't all about religion. Many Atheists and Humanists groups are also pro-life!
They see abortion as a gross violation of human rights - as it should be............... because, it is!

I never claimed it was only religious people. I wrote this:

In America and for every national and international human rights organization (non-religiously based)...that definition does not include the unborn. If you disagree, prove it, link to it.​

Apparently, unless you can prove otherwise, your dramatic claim that abortion is a violation of human rights is not supported anywhere else except personally...which of course is perfectly fine for each individual.

Just like it's perfectly fine for people, esp. pregnant women, to not believe it. Just as our Constitution says and our federal govt supports: the unborn have no rights.

14th Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anyway - nothing is for certain yet since there are challenges being made to RvW.
It's been so politicized - so, anything goes.

Even if they overturn RvW, which they wont, many states will not restrict abortion. And under the Const. no state can criminalize 'having' an abortion. It goes against the 4th and 14th and 9th Amendments. It would just allow states to forbid Drs from performing it. So women would go to other states.

 

[tosca1]

That is just your opinion of a 'right to life.' It is one definition and as a definition, the red text needs to be prefaced with: a 'right to life' is the belief that.....

In America and for every national and international human rights organization (non-religiously based)...that definition does not include the unborn. If you disagree, prove it, link to it.

Just dont forget:

Once again, in case you missed it, the Constitution protects the rest of us FROM your belief in your made up sins.

You don't know a lot.

Constitution is man-made. All human rights organizations - their preamble - is, man-made. It evolves.....therefore it can change.




Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

Preamble

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


Whereas the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,


Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,


Whereas the need for such special safeguards has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924, and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the statutes of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,


Whereas mankind owes to the child the best it has to give,


Now therefore,

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

The text of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

www.cirp.org

From Concept to Convention:
How Human Rights Law Evolves

From Concept to Convention: How Human Rights Law Evolves

hrlibrary.umn.edu

 

[Lursa]

You don't know a lot.

Your assumption proves you wrong already.

Constitution is man-made. All human rights organizations - their preamble - is, man-made. It evolves.....therefore it can change.

Yes it is...where did I ever suggest differently? And it can change...but it's not going to change in a direction that violates women's rights.

We are not going backwards into the Dark Ages.

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Sorry, ancient history. Already overridden however your link was broken and I couldnt see it.

Whereas the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

Noting about the unborn.

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth

Let's see the link, a working link, to this.

Whereas the need for such special safeguards has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924, and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the statutes of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,

Even more ancient.

Whereas mankind owes to the child the best it has to give,

Now therefore

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

The text of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

www.cirp.org

Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

From Concept to Convention: How Human Rights Law Evolves

From Concept to Convention: How Human Rights Law Evolves

hrlibrary.umn.edu

Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

What your post does show is that humanity, society, is progressing forward and supporting equality for women with men, supporting OUR rights. And in supporting our rights, the world is respecting OUR individual decisions on how best to lead our lives and protect our families. We are not children needing the govt or strangers what is best for us and the progress of human rights organizations is to support t his for women, KNOWING that the more safe and secure and respected women are, the more likely we are to be ready and capable and prepared to give birth. Supporting women is universally understood as the way towards safer, more secure and healthier societies where ALL have the best chance of prospering.

 

[RAMOSS]

For me science makes it perfectly clear, the unborn are human beings in the early stages of life. The more modern a society becomes the more likely abortion becomes an option. No other
animal ..that's a mother ..kills its own young.

The good news is this ..Caucasians have zeroed out, more are dying than being born. Successful white women are waiting and in some cases not having children at all. The downside to less children
whether it be by abortion or success means less kin. Perpetuating the species is a natural need more important than food.

The legal definition of a human being is a BORN person. That shows that 'science' has nothing to do with the term 'human being'. That is a moral/ethical/philosophical issue, not a scientific one.


So, let's look at the law dealing with the term

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

 

[tosca1]

Your assumption proves you wrong already.

Yes it is...where did I ever suggest differently? And it can change...but it's not going to change in a direction that violates women's rights.

We are not going backwards into the Dark Ages.

Sorry, ancient history. Already overridden however your link was broken and I couldnt see it.
Noting about the unborn.
Let's see the link, a working link, to this.
Even more ancient.


Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

What your post does show is that humanity, society, is progressing forward and supporting equality for women with men, supporting OUR rights. And in supporting our rights, the world is respecting OUR individual decisions on how best to lead our lives and protect our families. We are not children needing the govt or strangers what is best for us and the progress of human rights organizations is to support t his for women, KNOWING that the more safe and secure and respected women are, the more likely we are to be ready and capable and prepared to give birth. Supporting women is universally understood as the way towards safer, more secure and healthier societies where ALL have the best chance of prospering.

Hahahaha- not assumption, Lursa!
Unlike God's Words, those you mentioned are all man-made! THEY CAN CHANGE!


Your opinion is wrong about human rights organizations, and I showed you that evidence!

 

[tosca1]

Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

Better understand what you read:


Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well as after birth,

Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

The text of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

www.cirp.org

Lol - Based on your claim that the link doesn't refer to the unborn - I want some clarification from you -
do you know what an unborn is, btw?

 

[tosca1]

Your assumption proves you wrong already.

Yes it is...where did I ever suggest differently? And it can change...but it's not going to change in a direction that violates women's rights.

We are not going backwards into the Dark Ages.

Sorry, ancient history. Already overridden however your link was broken and I couldnt see it.
Noting about the unborn.
Let's see the link, a working link, to this.
Even more ancient.


Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

Nowhere does this link apply to or refer to the unborn.

What your post does show is that humanity, society, is progressing forward and supporting equality for women with men, supporting OUR rights. And in supporting our rights, the world is respecting OUR individual decisions on how best to lead our lives and protect our families. We are not children needing the govt or strangers what is best for us and the progress of human rights organizations is to support t his for women, KNOWING that the more safe and secure and respected women are, the more likely we are to be ready and capable and prepared to give birth. Supporting women is universally understood as the way towards safer, more secure and healthier societies where ALL have the best chance of prospering.

Yada-yada-yada!

The point: Unlike God's Words, those organizations - even the Constitution - they're all man-made!
THEY CAN CHANGE!


Look how the Constitution has been "massaged" to enable RvW.
If it can be manipulated into it - then, it can be manipulated back where it should be!

YOU CAN'T USE THE CONSTITUTION AS YOUR CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT! Unlike The Laws of God, it's not cast in stone!
It's dependent on the lawmakers "interpreting" it!


Who would've thought that we'd come to this point in time when it's open season for the unborn?
Kinda like Herod or Pharaoh of Egypt, to the slaughter of the innocents! Modern-version.

 

[tosca1]

Supporting women is universally understood as the way towards safer, more secure and healthier societies where ALL have the best chance of prospering.

I'm all for practically supporting women.

I'm all for condemning and convicting MURDEROUS WOMEN!

 

[tosca1]

The legal definition of a human being is a BORN person. That shows that 'science' has nothing to do with the term 'human being'. That is a moral/ethical/philosophical issue, not a scientific one.


So, let's look at the law dealing with the term

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

Obviously.....that definition has been tailored to suit the progressive ideology on abortion. That can change.



That's the problem with man-made laws.
One day you're a human being with all the rights........but tomorrow, suddenly you find yourself defined as a
"sub-human."

Go ask the Jews. They've been there.


Anyone who supports stripping the humanity of any human being - at whatever stage in life they're in - shouldn't be complaining should they find themselves being stripped of their own humanity by whoever is in power.

Stop messing with the toolbox. What goes around......can, come around.