The abortion issue, what is it all about?

[vegas giants]

its murder and promotes promiscuitiy

Nah its great

 

[mrjurrs]

Here's the real question, is abortion nothing more than laws created by some people's religious beliefs? Is that the road america is choosing to pursue? Abortion is not murder according to the law that the party of law and order obviously disagrees, so that to me means they are basing their idea of murder on religious beliefs.

So, what is the issue with abortion and are we now passing laws on religious beliefs?

Shrouded in religious overtones, abortion laws are straight out efforts by men to hold women down. If men got pregnant, abortions would be available as a drive thru service.

 

[bongsaway]

Then you lump all Christians into that group.

Beware of saying that you are only prejudiced against certain things. First, that means you are admitting to prejudice. Second, your definition is a matter of cenvenience.


That has not been correct is Roe v Wade, as you should know.


Except that they are Catholic, not Protestant. See also the comment on allowing yourself a prejudice.





I said that a majority of people believe that a viable fetus is a person, so let's make sure that is what we are discussing.


As you say, they are a part of the majority, but they do not account for all of it.


Polling does not suggest that this is correct.

At the very least, a majority think that a viable fetus is a person independent of the mother. The issue of rights clouds the matter.


Hence the debate to change the law.


I didn't. I said one specific poster is consistently anti-Christian. I am sure that there are others.

I'm anti all organized religions if it makes you feel better? I find too many 'godly' folks are the biggest hypocrites in the world who are blind to their own prejudices but want to point out mine. So yes, I am prejudiced against organized religion. Now if you want to talk about spirituality, I'm all in. I think people can be very spiritual without being one bit religious.

 

[bongsaway]

they should be charged

With what?

 

[Simpletruther]

You don't get to ask me a question until you answer mine

Here's the real question, is abortion nothing more than laws created by some people's religious beliefs? Is that the road america is choosing to pursue? Abortion is not murder according to the law that the party of law and order obviously disagrees, so that to me means they are basing their idea of murder on religious beliefs.

So, what is the issue with abortion and are we now passing laws on religious beliefs?

1 no
2 no
3 no

Now your turn

 

[TypicalRussian]

With what?

murder

 

[TypicalRussian]

Nah its great

of course you think that

 

[Atreus21]

Here's the real question, is abortion nothing more than laws created by some people's religious beliefs? Is that the road america is choosing to pursue? Abortion is not murder according to the law that the party of law and order obviously disagrees, so that to me means they are basing their idea of murder on religious beliefs.

So, what is the issue with abortion and are we now passing laws on religious beliefs?

The issue is simple. If the target of abortion isnt a biological human being, then kill it at your discretion, no different than excising a tumor.

But if it is a human being, then what justifies deliberately killing it?

Biologists attest that the unborn are human beings.

So what justifies deliberately killing innocent human beings?

 

[Atreus21]

Isn't there a sub-forum for this?

It'll be moved soon I suspect.

 

[Hamish Howl]

its a real question

A really stupid question.

 

[Cassandra]

The issue is simple. If the target of abortion isnt a biological human being, then kill it at your discretion, no different than excising a tumor.

But if it is a human being, then what justifies deliberately killing it?

Biologists attest that the unborn are human beings.

So what justifies deliberately killing innocent human beings?

So when you eat a fertilized egg, you tell people you are having chicken for breakfast?

 

[Cassandra]

That's a chicken and egg question. Did priests develop morality or did feelings of moral outrage shape the priesthood? It is sufficient to say that every religion of which I am aware abhors abortion. So do the secular legal codes, many consdering it murder. Loopholes, backdoors, and blind eyes are just as common. Historically, it is closely associated with infanticide, likely because reasonable medical procedures did not exist. .


That is currently true in USA. Historically speaking it would be false.


Poor logic. You began with a conclusion and seek to justify it.


First, stop treating it as a religious issue because doing so is inappropriate. True, many religions and sects teach that it is sinful, but it is also a moral/ethical issue entirely apart from religion.

It is not a single issue. The stage of the pregnancy is also important. While the Roman church teaches that life--meaning personhood-- begins at conception, the church has few allies. A significant majority support measures within the first trimester. A similar majority opposes abortion of a viable fetus. The current laws which allow abortion on demand are considered too permissive, especially at later stages in the pregnancy.

Wrong. Not all religions agree that a zygote is a "person" and abortion is not prohibited. All women have spontaneous natural abortions. Have had several myself. I did not break into tears for having a late period. Wome's fertilized eggs do not always successfully implant or develop. It is called nature.

Furthermore, historically and in many cultures, en embryo was not considered a 'baby' until quickening (3 months)

And further furthermore, women did occasionally receive help from midwives to terminate pregnancies in the American colonies. Prior to the quickening it was not considered murder. Far more dangerous in the colonial period was to be accused of being a witch!

Are you a meat eater? If so, you are not pro-life.

 

[Cassandra]

its murder and promotes promiscuitiy

Then you should adopt my suggestion: all men must receive a vasectomy until or unless they become mature enough to become fathers.

 

[Atreus21]

So when you eat a fertilized egg, you tell people you are having chicken for breakfast?

No. Why?

 

[Jay59]

I'm anti all organized religions if it makes you feel better? I find too many 'godly' folks are the biggest hypocrites in the world who are blind to their own prejudices but want to point out mine. So yes, I am prejudiced against organized religion. Now if you want to talk about spirituality, I'm all in. I think people can be very spiritual without being one bit religious.

Thank you. It's good to have your biases in the open. Now, please leave them out of this discussion because they do not belong.

Wrong. Not all religions agree that a zygote is a "person" and abortion is not prohibited.

You misquote. I did not say or imply that all religions consider a zygote a person.

They do generally abhor voluntary termination of a pregnancy.

All women have spontaneous natural abortions. Have had several myself. I did not break into tears for having a late period. Wome's fertilized eggs do not always successfully implant or develop. It is called nature.

And it is not a voluntary termination of the pregnancy.

Furthermore, historically and in many cultures, en embryo was not considered a 'baby' until quickening (3 months)

This agrees with what I said.

And further furthermore, women did occasionally receive help from midwives to terminate pregnancies in the American colonies. Prior to the quickening it was not considered murder. Far more dangerous in the colonial period was to be accused of being a witch!

I did say that the practice was tolerated.

Are you a meat eater? If so, you are not pro-life.

I'm pro-choice.

 

[Lursa]

The issue is simple. If the target of abortion isnt a biological human being, then kill it at your discretion, no different than excising a tumor.

But if it is a human being, then what justifies deliberately killing it?

Biologists attest that the unborn are human beings.

So what justifies deliberately killing innocent human beings?

Since when is science an authority we follow regarding the law? Laws are man-made concepts. As are rights. Science does not recognize value, nor rights for any species. It does not value Homo sapiens above any other species. Science is objective; law, rights, morality, value are subjective.

What authority that Americans are obligated to follow recognizes rights for the unborn?

 

[Lursa]

not religious at all------------------killing of humans is just wrong by any standards, unless in self-defense

"Who says?" We have legalized killing for many reasons that our society finds justifiable, like war, self-defense, death penalty, assisted suicide, abortion, removing life support, etc.

While not everyone agrees with all of those, most of society does. So I ask you again, 'who says' when it comes to your claim? What authority?

 

[vegas giants]

of course you think that

Cause I'm right

 

[choiceone]

The issue is simple. If the target of abortion isnt a biological human being, then kill it at your discretion, no different than excising a tumor.

But if it is a human being, then what justifies deliberately killing it?

Threat to a pregnant woman's life, threat of irreparable injury to her, or major illness, rape or incest committed against her, because rape of incest pregnancy is a continuation of the rape or incest whether you like it or not, for example. As long as it cannot live without being inside her, it has no life of its own. It's all her life whether you like it or not.

Biologists attest that the unborn are human beings.

So what justifies deliberately killing innocent human beings?

Biologists do not so attest. The word "being" is added to the word "human" as an indication of human mental awareness. This would be true even if we added it to other words, e.g., canine being. No fetus is even capable of future human mental awareness until a uniquely human EEG develops, at about 28 or 29 weeks or more.

A human embryo or fetus that developed because of rape is a continued embodiment of rape. The only difference is that the rapist is using the embryo or fetus as a weaponized ovum that has implanted in the woman's flesh and is transferring loose chromosomes of the rapist into the woman's bloodstream and therefore raping her blood instead of using a different part of his body to rape her vagina.

If a legally insane man is raping a woman, she has a right to use lethal force if necessary to make him stop, as does a third party helping her, even though the man is technically innocent and can't be charged with or convicted of rape because he's legally insane.

We have such laws because some things are more important than life, but most people, never having experienced that, only understand it by breadth of perspective, which apparently many people lack.

 

[minnie616]

Abortion is kosher. Why are jews forcing their religion on us ?

Actually , most of the Jewish sects are pro choice. In fact when Roe was first passed many of the Jewish leaders ment with leaders from many Protestant denominations to form a coalition and prevent the Catholic Church from overturning Roe.

Some people think they have a right to force the views of their Church onto others using the force of law.

They fail to recognize that other Christian churches andmost of Jewish sects do not agree with Catholic or Evangelical church, etc.

The Catholic Curch and some Evangelical churches feel the need to control others and may even wish to treat women as a lesser in their hierarchy .

They may have given up their personal liberty for their Church so now they feel that other people who might not even be members of their church must give up their personal liberty also.

They do not wish to acknowledge there are many religions , religious sects and groups who support Pro choice.

From the RCRC :

The Moral Case​

rcrc.org

Religious Liberty

Our religious principles: We are attuned to the important role of our diverse faiths in personal and public life. We treasure the religious freedom guaranteed Americans since our nation’s founding.

Our advocacy position: Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

 

[minnie616]

What happens when the baby is dead inside the womb at four months? How do you think they get it out so it doesn't kill the mother? Ask it to come out? Give me a break, you are obviously a dude.

what?

When the fetus has died a natural death that late in pregnancy and was not expelled on its own the doctor must perform an intact dilation and extraction procedure.

The Intact D and E became a hot button issue several years when a small number were preformed on live fetuses and were called partial birth abortions by some politicians.

An intact D and E is still legal when a fetus is dead before labor or extraction of the fetus begins.

 

[bongsaway]

1 no
2 no
3 no

Now your turn

The law is the law, right or wrong.

 

[bongsaway]

murder

Ok, let's go with your theory. A doctor performs an abortion and somehow ends up in court for murder. How do you think the court will rule?

 

[bongsaway]

The issue is simple. If the target of abortion isnt a biological human being, then kill it at your discretion, no different than excising a tumor.

But if it is a human being, then what justifies deliberately killing it?

Biologists attest that the unborn are human beings.

So what justifies deliberately killing innocent human beings?

Let's ask putin. I don't see any republicans on here outraged about all the innocent deaths in ukraine or is the abortion issue nothing more than a means to control women?

 

[tshade]

"Who says?" We have legalized killing for many reasons that our society finds justifiable, like war, self-defense, death penalty, assisted suicide, abortion, removing life support, etc.

While not everyone agrees with all of those, most of society does. So I ask you again, 'who says' when it comes to your claim? What authority?

western civ. moral standards