Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is manslaughter or reckless indifference. Murder requires intent to take a human life, which I don't think is usually involved in abortion.
One Pro-Choice argument I found interesting is that you are not required to use your body to save a life. If giving blood or marrow would save a life you still do not have to do that. Therefore you do not have to use your body to incubate another human. I didn't say I found this persuasive though. For one abortion is pretty often not the mere passive removal of a fetus and exposure of it to elements. For another a person who would allow another to die to avoid personal discomfort would generally become a pariah in a way I don't think Pro-Choicers would find acceptable for those who commit abortion.
Anyway whether you're animal rights or not our system is set up to value human above animal life. That there might be cases where a profoundly brain-injured person is less sentient than a monkey is scientifically interesting, but killing such an impaired human is going to be a greater crime than killing the monkey. Probably even then killing an endangered-species monkey.
Still it's not murder unless you have the intent. Still there might be cases where it could be murder. In the US there are no restrictions, in any state, before the twentieth week of conception. So in theory a woman could have a second-trimester abortion with the intent of killing what she thinks is a baby, possibly to get revenge on the father. That would essentially be murder. It would also be totally legal I believe. Granted that sounds far-fetched, but in Missouri a man intentionally fathered a child with a woman so he could inject it with AIDS after it was born. He had not told the woman he was still angry with her for dumping him early in their relationship or some such.
When a woman walks into an abortion mill, how can you believe she is not intent on taking a human life? What is she there for? Coffee and donuts. Please get real.
When a woman walks into an abortion mill, how can you believe she is not intent on taking a human life? What is she there for? Coffee and donuts. Please get real.
She may sincerely believe that she is removing an organism or a glob of tissue. That her ideas on the subject are deluded doesn't change that they exist. If a mentally impaired man shoots a dwarf because he thinks dwarfs are magical creatures, and not people, his impairment will be taken into account when deciding sentencing and so forth.
She may sincerely believe that she is removing an organism or a glob of tissue. That her ideas on the subject are deluded doesn't change that they exist. If a mentally impaired man shoots a dwarf because he thinks dwarfs are magical creatures, and not people, his impairment will be taken into account when deciding sentencing and so forth.
She may believe she is removing an organism or a glob of tissue?
Only if the woman is mentally retarded, or has no schooling could she believe that. We are not living in the darkages anymore. Here is what one of those globs look like. I believe only evil people who do not have God in their conscience could ever find anything like this acceptable.
Clearly the Bible tells us that abortion is murder. In the Old Testament it speaks of two men fighting. By accident one of the men strikes a woman who was pregnant. As a result, the woman had an early birth, yet the child survived. The Bible tells us that if the child had died, the law required that the one who struck her should be put to death. And then Scripture states it's a life for a life. Scripture sees no difference between an unborn child, and a living person. Can you imagine what God must think when he sees the murder mills today in action. Only the most evil could believe this is an acceptable pratice.
Oh here we go...clearly, the bible does NOT tell us, anywhere within its contents, that abortion is murder. I know the verse you are referring to and its from exodus, and it's speaking of the punishment for incidentally causing a woman to miscarry being far less than intentionally causing harm or death to said infant once it is bore. You perhaps are interpreting this, and probably other bible passages to be anti-abortion, and that's fine, but do not confuse your own interpretation as anything but just that. Likewise I realize that my interpretation of the same quote is my own, and certainly not any sort of valid means to back up the argument that I am making. It would be refreshing if you would realize that your personal beliefs and interpretation of things are not the same as facts.
However in fairness, since you are comfortable in using the bible to back up and validate the argument you are trying to make that abortion is murder, and that it is wrong, then OK. So if you are to believe that based on some bible versus that you feel imply that abortion is wrong/murder, then how do you feel about and/or defend some of the verses that illustrate infanticide as being acceptable and a fair means of genocide?
Of course no doubt you'll ignore my query, you always do. Though it's OK, because we both know that you couldn't possibly provide a fair and reasonable answer to that which I asked, because there isn't one. Gotta love the inconsistencies within the bible that go completely ignored as per the convenience of any said bible "literalist"...
And not that this is anything but a point of curiosity, but just fyi- it is common knowledge that abortion was legal, and considered acceptable during the time jesus lived and during a good portion of the timespan under which the bible was written around.
Last edited by helios666; 10-13-2010 at 02:45 AM..
Reason: clarity
Umm... You asked me how I came to my opinion. I tried to explain it to you. I think there is a big difference between a fetus that cannot survive on its own and a human being that has been alive outside of the womb and is being kept alive by machines because of an accident or whatnot. I understand that you don't believe we should ban all abortions - just ones after 8 weeks. Why 8 weeks? Why not 7 weeks or 9 weeks?
Just because I have my own opinions that don't make sense to you and that I'm not very good at explaining does not mean that I don't listen to you.
I'm trying really hard to be respectful to everyone here. I'm sorry if you have a problem with me. I really have no idea why. Our opinions were asked for and I shared mine. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm simply trying to express what I feel.
And for the record - if I'm brain dead and only being kept alive by machines - my husband knows that I want him to pull the plug. I don't want to live that way or have anyone that loves me see me live that way. But that's just me.
You give silly reason.. why if we knew you would be back in 6 months do will still remove you from life support. Look I just assume people had reasons for their opinion, guess I was wrong.
Oh here we go...clearly, the bible does NOT tell us, anywhere within its contents, that abortion is murder. I know the verse you are referring to and its from exodus, and it's speaking of the punishment for incidentally causing a woman to miscarry being far less than intentionally causing harm or death to said infant once it is bore. You perhaps are interpreting this, and probably other bible passages to be anti-abortion, and that's fine, but do not confuse your own interpretation as anything but just that. Likewise I realize that my interpretation of the same quote is my own, and certainly not any sort of valid means to back up the argument that I am making. It would be refreshing if you would realize that your personal beliefs and interpretation of things are not the same as facts.
However in fairness, since you are comfortable in using the bible to back up and validate the argument you are trying to make that abortion is murder, and that it is wrong, then OK. So if you are to believe that based on some bible versus that you feel imply that abortion is wrong/murder, then how do you feel about and/or defend some of the verses that illustrate infanticide as being acceptable and a fair means of genocide?
Of course no doubt you'll ignore my query, you always do. Though it's OK, because we both know that you couldn't possibly provide a fair and reasonable answer to that which I asked, because there isn't one. Gotta love the inconsistencies within the bible that go completely ignored as per the convenience of any said bible "literalist"...
And not that this is anything but a point of curiosity, but just fyi- it is common knowledge that abortion was legal, and considered acceptable during the time jesus lived and during a good portion of the timespan under which the bible was written around.
The Bible tells us that the taking of an unborn childs life is equal to murder. And that is why the Scriptures tell us, it is a life for a life. It's so obvious, how could you ignore that.
What part of Scripture are you refering to when you speak of infanticide as an acceptable and fair means of genocide?
Murder was never acceptable to Jesus, yet God has instructed His people in the past to destroy others before they could destroy His people. And when God tells His people to defend themselves by means of war, this is not a case of murder. Murder is killing without cause.
Does'nt it say in the Ten commandments that thou shalt not kill?
I did'nt see the part where it said that Murder & Genocide are acceptable if God orders it.
If you do your homework, the actual translation is. Thou shall not murder. God did order genocide, yet the Jews often did not fully follow Gods commands. And as a result, many Jews later were murdered themselves by the one's God told them to kill. And the Jews suffered murder, because they refused to follow God's command.
The Bible tells us that the taking of an unborn childs life is equal to murder. And that is why the Scriptures tell us, it is a life for a life. It's so obvious, how could you ignore that.
What part of Scripture are you refering to when you speak of infanticide as an acceptable and fair means of genocide?
Murder was never acceptable to Jesus, yet God has instructed His people in the past to destroy others before they could destroy His people. And when God tells His people to defend themselves by means of war, this is not a case of murder. Murder is killing without cause.
Yes, well, the problem with this stance is that the Vatican, because they view abortion as murder, is unwilling to classify war rape as a war crime. Since the 1st war soldiers have raped the enemy girls & women, yet the Vatican lobbies against making war rape a war crime, simply because they don't want the pregnant rape-victims to have the (human) right to have an abortion.
Another disastrous result of the Vatican’s anti-abortion stance is that in many Catholic countries pregnant women who also suffer from cancer aren't being treated because if the foetus is harmed during chemo the doctor will be tried and convicted of having performed abortion which often is illegal in those countries. Instead the medics advise these women to come back for cancer treatment after they've delivered their baby, which might be too late.
She may believe she is removing an organism or a glob of tissue?
Only if the woman is mentally retarded, or has no schooling could she believe that.
People can believe, or delude themselves into believing, all kinds of things. I read an article once on a woman training to be an abortion doctor. She noted that the second-trimester abortions "looked like babies" but said it wasn't a problem because "really they looked more like dolls with doll pieces." (Interestingly though she ended up not being an abortion doctor because she felt the field was too clinical and emotionally cold, or I think that was her reason anyway)
And to be honest in the first 7 weeks it doesn't entirely look like a baby and a sizable minority of abortions are performed in that period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, well, the problem with this stance is that the Vatican, because they view abortion as murder, is unwilling to classify war rape as a war crime. Since the 1st war soldiers have raped the enemy girls & women, yet the Vatican lobbies against making war rape a war crime, simply because they don't want the pregnant rape-victims to have the (human) right to have an abortion.
Another disastrous result of the Vatican’s anti-abortion stance is that in many Catholic countries pregnant women who also suffer from cancer aren't being treated because if the foetus is harmed during chemo the doctor will be tried and convicted of having performed abortion which often is illegal in those countries.
Instead the medics advise these women to come back for cancer treatment after they've delivered their baby, which might be too late.