Abortion:Should It, Or Should It Not Be Outlawed?

[JesusFreak offline]

Yes...which is exactly what I quoted you as saying several times in my posts. ^^;

Huh? you said I was beign contrary to what I said before.

I'm confused

I'm not talking stillborn exclusively; there's lots of other problems like SIDS, vegetable-ism, and countless other medical problems that could end the baby's life prematurely.

As to what I mean by the mother being allowed the same chance of success as the child, I am referring to your earlier post that abortion was wrong because "everyone should have the right to life and the chance to become the next Beethoven, Einstein, etc.".

However, if everyone does indeed have the right, why can't the mother have it? Particularly in the case of a risky pregnancy, why can't the mother be extended the same right to life and a chance to become successful?

Neither was I. it was the only post-birth problem I could think of.
i'm starting to see what your getting at. Well, either the Mother or the Child has the right to life. Yeah, I'm just some dude with a Bible and I don't know everything. I guess that's up to God.

You're misunderstanding (and misquoting) me. I said that the mother choosing not to have an abortion (and subsequently dying directly from it) cannot be counted as an "accident" because it was a willingly made choice with the possible consequences fully understood (just as one fully understands the consequences of jumping off a bridge).

It's kind of hard to correctly quote someone when you misunderstand what they said, sorry.
It's not the same thing to die from childbirth and die from jumping of a bridge. A risky pregnancy is a chance of death, while jumping off a bridge is a pretty much 100% shot at death.

Ah, but if the child itself was an accident to begin with, why, therefore, is anyone responsible for its death? If you want to get technical, shouldn't the father be the most at fault for giving it life in the first place, and thereby making it susceptible (and for those who follow that branch of philosophy, doomed) to death? Why is it the mother's fault? Why is it always the mother's fault?

I don't follow that philosophy, I was just going along with your examples. It's the father's fault equally, because He was also to blame for the mes the mother is in. As for the first part of your paragraph, Things happen whether you want them to or not. If someone was hit by a car, it was an accident, yet it was still somebody's fault. Same thing applies here.

What you're against is a woman choosing to have an abortion without first considering that it will mean taking (what may or may not be considered at the time) a life?

Ehe, That too. I was talking about being overly judgemental to the ex-mother.


On another note:

Yes JesusFreak you do come across blinded by your religion. But thats because you based on what you feel is right based off what a book says God says is right rather then your gut feeling.

Sorry TPP, there is a higher power that everyone has to be subject to. That may not sit well with you, but truth is not subjective

[. offline]

Yes...which is exactly what I quoted you as saying several times in my posts. ^^;

Huh? you said I was beign contrary to what I said before.

I'm confused

I'm not talking stillborn exclusively; there's lots of other problems like SIDS, vegetable-ism, and countless other medical problems that could end the baby's life prematurely.

As to what I mean by the mother being allowed the same chance of success as the child, I am referring to your earlier post that abortion was wrong because "everyone should have the right to life and the chance to become the next Beethoven, Einstein, etc.".

However, if everyone does indeed have the right, why can't the mother have it? Particularly in the case of a risky pregnancy, why can't the mother be extended the same right to life and a chance to become successful?

Neither was I. it was the only post-birth problem I could think of.
i'm starting to see what your getting at. Well, either the Mother or the Child has the right to life. Yeah, I'm just some dude with a Bible and I don't know everything. I guess that's up to God.

You're misunderstanding (and misquoting) me. I said that the mother choosing not to have an abortion (and subsequently dying directly from it) cannot be counted as an "accident" because it was a willingly made choice with the possible consequences fully understood (just as one fully understands the consequences of jumping off a bridge).

It's kind of hard to correctly quote someone when you misunderstand what they said, sorry.
It's not the same thing to die from childbirth and die from jumping of a bridge. A risky pregnancy is a chance of death, while jumping off a bridge is a pretty much 100% shot at death.

Ah, but if the child itself was an accident to begin with, why, therefore, is anyone responsible for its death? If you want to get technical, shouldn't the father be the most at fault for giving it life in the first place, and thereby making it susceptible (and for those who follow that branch of philosophy, doomed) to death? Why is it the mother's fault? Why is it always the mother's fault?

I don't follow that philosophy, I was just going along with your examples. It's the father's fault equally, because He was also to blame for the mes the mother is in. As for the first part of your paragraph, Things happen whether you want them to or not. If someone was hit by a car, it was an accident, yet it was still somebody's fault. Same thing applies here.

What you're against is a woman choosing to have an abortion without first considering that it will mean taking (what may or may not be considered at the time) a life?

Ehe, That too. I was talking about being overly judgemental to the ex-mother.


On another note:

Yes JesusFreak you do come across blinded by your religion. But thats because you based on what you feel is right based off what a book says God says is right rather then your gut feeling.

truth =/= faith
Sorry TPP, there is a higher power that everyone has to be subject to. That may not sit well with you, but truth is not subjective

[JesusFreak offline]

It's not just faith, but please put whatever arguments/questions/opinions in the Christians thread so this one's not locked. I'd be happy to talk there.

[Mewberries151]

Yes...which is exactly what I quoted you as saying several times in my posts. ^^;

Huh? you said I was beign contrary to what I said before.

I'm confused

*sweatdrops*

Nevermind. This is clearly becoming a classic case example of "Who's on second." ^^;

...I really can't think of any other way to reword my point, so I suppose I'll just let it go for now. ;

You're misunderstanding (and misquoting) me. I said that the mother choosing not to have an abortion (and subsequently dying directly from it) cannot be counted as an "accident" because it was a willingly made choice with the possible consequences fully understood (just as one fully understands the consequences of jumping off a bridge).

It's kind of hard to correctly quote someone when you misunderstand what they said, sorry.
It's not the same thing to die from childbirth and die from jumping of a bridge. A risky pregnancy is a chance of death, while jumping off a bridge is a pretty much 100% shot at death.

Heh...fair enough...it does get a bit hard to both type and read clearly after... *looks at clock* midnight or so... ^^;

And...well, depending on the level of risk a pregnancy has, the chance of death goes up as well...meanwhile, the height of the bridge you're jumping off of also impacts your chance at death (as does the way you fall off it). (Say for example I jumped off of one of those little "bouncy" bridges they have in children's playgrounds...that wouldn't do anything at all unless I fell really unluckily or something).

At any rate, my point is though that there's levels of risk in pregnancy and that sometimes it's hard to judge how dangerous one can be and then other times it can be relatively certain and sure. However, the risk should always be considered. Risk in pregnancy and childbirth can't just be passed off as a non-issue, nor even a less important one.

Ah, but if the child itself was an accident to begin with, why, therefore, is anyone responsible for its death? If you want to get technical, shouldn't the father be the most at fault for giving it life in the first place, and thereby making it susceptible (and for those who follow that branch of philosophy, doomed) to death? Why is it the mother's fault? Why is it always the mother's fault?

I don't follow that philosophy, I was just going along with your examples. It's the father's fault equally, because He was also to blame for the mes the mother is in. As for the first part of your paragraph, Things happen whether you want them to or not. If someone was hit by a car, it was an accident, yet it was still somebody's fault. Same thing applies here.

*blinks* Well...I could get into really deep semantics and what ifs over this, however I fear that would only make my point even more confused than it already is.

Incidentally, I don't exactly follow that philosophy either, but it is food for thought all the same.

What my intention more or less was, is that how can it be the mother's fault, if the mother is a 13 year old rape victim, (with, say for example, the assaulter being her father), how is it in any way her fault that she got pregnant? And why therefore, must she bare the pain for a crime she didn't commit, so to speak?

What you're against is a woman choosing to have an abortion without first considering that it will mean taking (what may or may not be considered at the time) a life?

Ehe, That too. I was talking about being overly judgemental to the ex-mother.


On another note:

Yes JesusFreak you do come across blinded by your religion. But thats because you based on what you feel is right based off what a book says God says is right rather then your gut feeling.

Sorry TPP, there is a higher power that everyone has to be subject to. That may not sit well with you, but truth is not subjective

Ah, there I must disagree. Truth is always subjective in any case, from abortion to religion to life itself.

There's always at least three sides to any story and any event (the version of each of those involved and then the factual account of what actually happened, which in itself isn't the truth either because it doesn't account for a lot of the psychological aspects of a given event).

Also, the truth of a higher power itself is subjective. History has shown it to be with its various cultures and their respective beliefs. And history has yet to show that <i>anyone</i> much less "everyone" is subject to one particular power.

*blinks*

...But this digresses from the topic at hand. ^^;

I think I've gotten my thoughts pretty well across on this, though.

[JesusFreak offline]

Okay...to switch things up, Im gonna ggo last to first


I wasn't necessarily referring to God. There's also the governament, your boss, your boss's boss, the milkman, etc.

for theh sake of not pulling this topic anywhere else, I put my answer in teh Christians tread


its stupid to blame a rape victim for getting pregnant, I agree.
Moving on...

I see your point there, and I apologize if It looked like I was suggesting that. I still think abortion can only be passed off as legal if you insist on not referring the baby as a human.


Okay, I thought you meant something else, I'm sorry


Wow, that was teh closest thing Ive ever came to to a debate. o_0

[Tangent128 offline]

I can't follow all that...

What my intention more or less was, is that how can it be the mother's fault, if the mother is a 13 year old rape victim, (with, say for example, the assaulter being her father), how is it in any way her fault that she got pregnant? And why therefore, must she bare the pain for a crime she didn't commit, so to speak?

It's not her fault, and anybody who acts as such is a jerk, yes.
However, if the mother's life isn't in danger, then it's also unfair to give the child the death penalty for a crime they didn't commit.

The issue's complicated...

[JesusFreak offline]

Tangent just said everything I was trying to say in one small post!

you see, I think the only way people can say an abortion is right in those circumstances is if you pass off the baby as not fully human.

My penny thrown in.

[. offline]

I can't follow all that...

What my intention more or less was, is that how can it be the mother's fault, if the mother is a 13 year old rape victim, (with, say for example, the assaulter being her father), how is it in any way her fault that she got pregnant? And why therefore, must she bare the pain for a crime she didn't commit, so to speak?

It's not her fault, and anybody who acts as such is a jerk, yes.
However, if the mother's life isn't in danger, then it's also unfair to give the child the death penalty for a crime they didn't commit.

The issue's complicated...

Like it's going know any better... cause of lack of a brain... ya know.

[JesusFreak offline]

Piper, It's a dead horse. Please stop beating it.

The baby's brain is there, it's just not fully formed.

[Kamekai offline]

IMO It's like killing an ant. It's there, but not aware.

[JesusFreak offline]

An ant isn't human.

[. offline]

Hasn't been formed yet = no brain present yet = no self awareness yet

An ant isn't human.

So the ant shouldn't have the right to say weather it lives or dies just cause it ain't human?

hmmm Double Standard....

[knifey offline]

Hasn't been formed yet = no brain present yet = no self awareness yet...

But it's extremely capable of being formed, and that's what the Christians see, and why they are against abortion. Or so I assume.

[. offline]

Hasn't been formed yet = no brain present yet = no self awareness yet...

But it's extremely capable of being formed, and that's what the Christians see, and why they are against abortion. Or so I assume.

And I'm fully in agreement with if you wait to long and the brains there tough nuggets. However an out right ban on abortion is not only idoicy it's out right against the constitutional rights the american country was founded on... And if we allow a Religion to be the basis for our laws then hell we might as well be living in any of the middle eastern countrys that base their law off Islam.

The point of America is that everyone can somewhat get along despite race/religion whatever because we have freedom here to do that.

[Tangent128 offline]

The Constitution says nothing about abortion; however, the Declaration, written by people of the same mindset (if not the same people), mentions the right to life...

Also, it's not a case of the brain in any case; it is human, so it has a soul. If you killed somebody in their sleep, they wouldn't know, would they? (At least not 'till they wake up wherever they're going...)

[JesusFreak offline]

Hasn't been formed yet = no brain present yet = no self awareness yet

An ant isn't human.

So the ant shouldn't have the right to say weather it lives or dies just cause it ain't human?

hmmm Double Standard....

Yes, because Humans aren't animals. We have culture, a language, society, and fire. (and opposable thumbs),

The brain has been formed before 8 weeks, it just starts seriously developing after 8 weeks.

[. offline]

Hasn't been formed yet = no brain present yet = no self awareness yet

An ant isn't human.

So the ant shouldn't have the right to say weather it lives or dies just cause it ain't human?

hmmm Double Standard....

Yes, because Humans aren't animals. We have culture, a language, society, and fire. (and opposable thumbs),

The brain has been formed before 8 weeks, it just starts seriously developing after 8 weeks.

no technically speaking humans ARE animals. The only difference is we have developed frontal lobes.

[JesusFreak offline]

Technically speaking, a toaster is related to a supercomputer that runs astrophysics calculations. Ants have colonies that are similar to cities, but do they have electricity, running water or toast?

What makes humans unique is that we are made in God's image. We were placed to be dominant over animals.

[Darth Grale offline]

Actually, a better comparison would be a LISA computer and Deep Blue.

[Kamekai offline]

Technically speaking, a toaster is related to a supercomputer that runs astrophysics calculations. Ants have colonies that are similar to cities, but do they have electricity, running water or toast?

What makes humans unique is that we are made in God's image. We were placed to be dominant over animals.

Ants sometimes have toast. O_O

Well, 10,000 years ago, man looked a lot different. Does that mean God looks like a caveman?

[JesusFreak offline]

well, I would say in the GENERAL image of God (2 arms, legs etc) because nobody alive knows what He looks like. Moses did, but that was one exception. (I think it's in Exodus, if you want to read the story.)

[Kamekai offline]

I bet he looked like a caveman, too.

[Mewberries151]

The Constitution says nothing about abortion; however, the Declaration, written by people of the same mindset (if not the same people), mentions the right to life...

^^; The Declaration also originally said we had the right to the pursuit of "property" (meaning housing, livestock and slaves, yes, slaves), but it was later changed to "happiness".

The right to life was intended as meaning the right to a life without tyranny, which ironically banning abortion could be seen as reflecting.

Also, it's not a case of the brain in any case; it is human, so it has a soul. If you killed somebody in their sleep, they wouldn't know, would they? (At least not 'till they wake up wherever they're going...)

Sleeping is different though. Your brain is still functioning on a subconscious level. However, theoretically, an undeveloped brain is not a functioning one. The "soul" also, is a...well, a debateable issue, to be sure, both due to its very existence being subjective, as well as its supposed placement within the human body.

Hasn't been formed yet = no brain present yet = no self awareness yet

An ant isn't human.

So the ant shouldn't have the right to say weather it lives or dies just cause it ain't human?

hmmm Double Standard....

Yes, because Humans aren't animals. We have culture, a language, society, and fire. (and opposable thumbs),

The brain has been formed before 8 weeks, it just starts seriously developing after 8 weeks.

Actually...we are. Always have been. Excluding ourselves from the animal kingdom is never going to work, as we belong to the ape family, and are "homo sapiens" in genus and species.

Incidentally, gorillas are animals, and they have a language, a society, a culture, and opposable thumbs. Wolves have the same (with the exception of opposable thumbs), as do ants and even the lowly cockroach.

...And some beetles are capable of starting fires. ^^;

Technically speaking, a toaster is related to a supercomputer that runs astrophysics calculations. Ants have colonies that are similar to cities, but do they have electricity, running water or toast?

Question is, do they need it? We have electricity and running water because we've developed it and fooled ourselves into thinking we need commodity's like that to survive (we did just fine for quite a few thousand years without any of that). Now granted, this isn't to say that we should all go back to living like cave people (that would mean no TV and no more CL ;D ), but I hope I'm making a clear point here... ^^;

What makes humans unique is that we are made in God's image. We were placed to be dominant over animals.

^^;;;;

If it weren't for our weapons and sheer dumb luck/skill, we'd have been toast centuries ago (and not the crispy kind with butter either). So many creatures in this world have far better survival skills then we do, and don't hurt the environment they live in.

Heck, a cockroach could probably survive a nuclear explosion...can we do that? ^^;


*blinks* But this is yet another digression. *sweatdrops*

[. offline]

Technically speaking, a toaster is related to a supercomputer that runs astrophysics calculations. Ants have colonies that are similar to cities, but do they have electricity, running water or toast?

What makes humans unique is that we are made in God's image. We were placed to be dominant over animals.

Yeah der. We're the top of the animal kingdom. But thats just it. We're the top "ANIMAL"

[JesusFreak offline]

Yes, Technically we are animals. Spiritually however, we aren't even close to animals. We have a drive that goes beyond basic instincts. We have the capacity to remember through written words. We have the ability to Pole-vault.

The right to life was intended as meaning the right to a life without tyranny, which ironically banning abortion could be seen as reflecting.

So banning killing innocent people is tyranny?

Actually...we are. Always have been. Excluding ourselves from the animal kingdom is never going to work, as we belong to the ape family, and are "homo sapiens" in genus and species.

Incidentally, gorillas are animals, and they have a language, a society, a culture, and opposable thumbs. Wolves have the same (with the exception of opposable thumbs), as do ants and even the lowly cockroach.

...And some beetles are capable of starting fires. ^^;

I'm not saying we are excluded from the animal kingdom, I'm saying we are unique from the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom.



THere's a difference between primitive bands of Gorillas eating dead skin off each other and a barber shop. THeres a difference between starting fires and using coal deposits to create steam to power vehicles and saunas.

Question is, do they need it? We have electricity and running water because we've developed it and fooled ourselves into thinking we need commodity's like that to survive (we did just fine for quite a few thousand years without any of that). Now granted, this isn't to say that we should all go back to living like cave people (that would mean no TV and no more CL ;D ), but I hope I'm making a clear point here... ^^;

What I was trying to say was that ants couldn't possibly do any of the things we do, such as type on a keyboard and go back and forth about our species in the womb being human.

If it weren't for our weapons and sheer dumb luck/skill, we'd have been toast centuries ago (and not the crispy kind with butter either). So many creatures in this world have far better survival skills then we do, and don't hurt the environment they live in.

Heck, a cockroach could probably survive a nuclear explosion...can we do that? ^^;

Exactly. If we evolved from apes and our survival skills are pathetic, then why are we still around? It takes an awfully large amount of dumb luck/skill. This is one of the biggest gripes I have with evolution, besides bats.



We're getting off topic....