Abortion is evil

[Yorzhik]

PANSY ALERT:
You men allow sentimentality about babies to cloud your reasoning.

Of course. Babies are cute. According to your reasoning they shouldn't want the best for babies, but men do.

The early stages of fetal development have unique properties and it would be more rational and practical to recognize the differences, but you let emotion stop you.

What can I say? You got me. I love babies so I want them to grow up healthy and happy. You want to keep them from experiencing life with the hardships that happen to be included with the good experiences of growing up by killing them when they are at their most vulnerable and innocent.

Let woman figure out the reasonable boundaries when it comes to reproduction.

Since you think babies should be killed when they are at their most vulnerable and innocent, I'm not sure you are qualified to say what the reasonable boundaries are.

Otherwise, you will have men declaring that rape is impossible in marriage and diligently preventing a rapist from bearing the fruits of his evil act is wrong.

Wow, you really are trying too hard with the emotional arguments. It makes me suspect you've had an abortion. Have you? I'm not asking to condemn you, I'm asking to understand why you are acting this way.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It makes me suspect you've had an abortion. Have you? I'm not asking to condemn you, I'm asking to understand why you are acting this way.

Guess I'm not the only one that thinks that.

It's the only rational explanation. She's had an abortion, and is now trying to justify it.

@Mary Contrary 999, assuming you have had an abortion at some point, you will NEVER be at peace with yourself. That's the way God designed us.

Your only hope is to seek forgiveness from God for your actions. You need to go to Him, the Prince of Peace, and ask God to help you.

 

[Idolater]

It might be a dude posing as a lady, don't forget. Anonymous internet discussion boards and all. It's always a possibility that users aren't exactly what they're appearing to be, and sometimes, this is by design.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

No, I never had an abortion and could not have any biological children. Not by my choice.

Simply women bear a pregnancy so they deserve a voice when the pregnancy occured by no intent or mistake of their own AND when the fetus has not developed beyond an immature state. Emotion comes in when you turn a single cell into a baby and a potential human substrate into a human being. You ignore the actual individual when you do that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I never had an abortion and could not have any biological children. Not by my choice.

You're a murderer at heart. It's not much of a leap to think that you're a liar as well.

Simply women bear a pregnancy

It's more than "a pregnancy."

It's a baby. That means she does not have the right to take the baby's life.

so they deserve a voice when the pregnancy occured by no intent or mistake of their own

No, they don't.

The moment a baby is conceived, they no longer have a say in the matter, because there's a third party involved, the baby.

AND when the fetus has not developed beyond an immature state.

fetus = baby, offspring

The fact that there's a baby involved means that the course is set, and intentionally killing the baby is murder.

Emotion comes in when you turn a single cell into a baby

No one is turning anything into anything.

The single-celled embryo is, in fact, a human child, a person, a genetically unique organism, and a creature made in God's image. You DO NOT have the right to kill that person.

and a potential human substrate into a human being.

Using terms that dehumanize the personhood of the baby in the womb shows your hatred for innocent children and your bloodlust.

You ignore the actual individual when you do that.

How about the individual in the womb?

 

[Rusha]

No, I never had an abortion and could not have any biological children. Not by my choice.

Simply women bear a pregnancy so they deserve a voice when the pregnancy occured by no intent or mistake of their own AND when the fetus has not developed beyond an immature state. Emotion comes in when you turn a single cell into a baby and a potential human substrate into a human being. You ignore the actual individual when you do that.

Unfortunately your criteria for abortion plays into the hands of pro-abortion advocates.

Abortion is ALWAYS the intentional killing of an unborn baby. The baby’s innocence and value do not change based on how the mother was impregnated or how she feels towards her unborn child.

Based on your rationalization for abortions, your thread OP is misleading.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Unfortunately your criteria for abortion plays into the hands of pro-abortion advocates.

Abortion is ALWAYS the intentional killing of an unborn baby. The baby’s innocence and value do not change based on how the mother was impregnated or how she feels towards her unborn child.

Based on your rationalization for abortions, your thread OP is misleading.

Rusha, if aliens were reanimating the dead by involuntarily hooking live humans to an apparatus that would enable cloning process resulting in an infant, would you passively comply once the process was started on you? Would you judge others for escaping? Disconnecting would destroy the developing fetus. Oh, and you are connected to the clones of Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer.

My original post is crystal clear. The title might be a little confusing if a careful read of the entire post is not made.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Oh Rusha, Yorshik thinks your input on the matter is detrimental to the discussion as you are a female incapable of real analysis. What does your husband think?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

You're a murderer at heart. It's not much of a leap to think that you're a liar as well.



It's more than "a pregnancy."

It's a baby. That means she does not have the right to take the baby's life.



No, they don't.

The moment a baby is conceived, they no longer have a say in the matter, because there's a third party involved, the baby.



fetus = baby, offspring

The fact that there's a baby involved means that the course is set, and intentionally killing the baby is murder.



No one is turning anything into anything.

The single-celled embryo is, in fact, a human child, a person, a genetically unique organism, and a creature made in God's image. You DO NOT have the right to kill that person.



Using terms that dehumanize the personhood of the baby in the womb shows your hatred for innocent children and your bloodlust.



How about the individual in the womb?

You have given into emotion. By your standards, the vast majority of the public are murders at heart. You group me in with people who support abortion on demand, people who have had late term abortion, and serial killers. I am not a murderer of any fashion. I am debating a reasonable exception in the law. I not advocating for abortion. I have advocated against it including in many cases of rape. You seem to let your fervor take over your reason. I assume it is because you really care about children.

Note that I choose to avoid flipping inflammation back at you. Someone could just as easily claimed you support rape culture or you want rapists to have children. That would be as silly as you have been.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Rusha, if aliens were reanimating the dead by involuntarily hooking live humans to an apparatus that would enable cloning process resulting in an infant, would you passively comply once the process was started on you? Would you judge others for escaping? Disconnecting would destroy the developing fetus. Oh, and you are connected to the clones of Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer.

Aliens don't exist. Cloning isn't possible by human means.

Using the names "Hitler" and "Jeffrey Dahmer" doesn't change the fact that all babies are innocent from the moment of conception, and intentionally killing them would be wrong, because it would be murder.

My original post is crystal clear. The title might be a little confusing if a careful read of the entire post is not made.

What's crystal clear is that you hate children before an arbitrarily determined point in their lives.

You have given into emotion.

Says the cold-hearted person who thinks it's ok to murder babies.

By your standards, the vast majority of the public are murders at heart.

Jesus said if a person looks at a woman to lust for her, he has already committed adultery in his heart.

The same applies to hatred and murder, respectively.

You group me in with people who support abortion on demand, people who have had late term abortion, and serial killers.

Yes, because you support the murder of the most innocent human beings on the planet.

I am not a murderer of any fashion.

Yes, you are.

I am debating a reasonable exception in the law.

There is nothing reasonable about murdering babies in the womb.

I not advocating for abortion.

Yes, you are.

I have advocated against it including in many cases of rape.

Irrelevant.

You seem to let your fervor take over your reason.

Says the one being irrational.

I assume it is because you really care about children.

I do.

Note that I choose to avoid flipping inflammation back at you.

Good for you.

Someone could just as easily claimed you support rape culture or you want rapists to have children.

No, they couldn't, because I don't.

I want rapists put to death, to deter would-be rapists from committing the same crime.

That would be as silly as you have been.

Ad hominem.

 

[Rusha]

Rusha, if aliens were reanimating the dead by involuntarily hooking live humans to an apparatus that would enable cloning process resulting in an infant, would you passively comply once the process was started on you? Would you judge others for escaping? Disconnecting would destroy the developing fetus. Oh, and you are connected to the clones of Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer.

My original post is crystal clear. The title might be a little confusing if a careful read of the entire post is not made.

Such bizarre arguments you cling to in order to justify your pro-abortion advocacy…

Oh Rusha, Yorshik thinks your input on the matter is detrimental to the discussion as you are a female incapable of real analysis. What does your husband think?

My ex-husband is pro-abortion … same as you.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Rusha,

I see you hate science fiction and hypotheticals and used your hate to avoid putting your views at risk. Yorshik used a similar scenario absent the interesting elements. Maybe you can respond to that?

Also think about this. If using a dialectic argument, the very best argument for killing innocent babies before they are born is the autonomy of a person's body argument. One could use the argument that if someone were hooked up you bodily in order to stay alive for 9 months in order to be healed well enough to live without being hooked up to you - you can justly refuse such a dependency with your body. Notice that this argument leaves no room for your compromise.

How so? Was the hook up voluntary or involuntary?

But this argument, the very best dialectic argument, fails when it comes to who initiates violence.

The rapist violently assaults a woman when he applied his sperm to her biology. A similar assault occurs when a person is hooked up to such a machine. Walking away from such an arrangement should be a legal if less courageous option.

 

[Idolater]

Yes that's the point. You cannot remove an invited passenger on your ship unless there is another place of safety. You can set a stow away adrift in a life raft. You can throw off an invited guest who suddenly decides to try to sink the ship.

That wasn't your point, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said. You're the one who introduced the analogy of the safe harbor. Yet you failed to stop at that the child is already in a safe harbor right where he or she (and or neither he-or-she) already is. To safely transport the child to safe harbor involves keeping him or her (and or neither him-nor-her) right where they are already right now, when they are already in the safe harbor.

But ... that aside, "Prove that you're not a materialist determinist." I don't have time pretending to converse with a determinist drone like Mr. Sam Harris. Show me you're not one of him.

Rusha,

I see you hate science fiction and hypotheticals and used your hate to avoid putting your views at risk. Yorshik used a similar scenario absent the interesting elements. Maybe you can respond to that?

How so? Was the hook up voluntary or involuntary?

The rapist violently assaults a woman when he applied his sperm to her biology. A similar assault occurs when a person is hooked up to such a machine. Walking away from such an arrangement should be a legal if less courageous option.

@Arthur Brain has argued that children have rights to essentials, and he's also established that those rights create or impose obligations on the child's parents, not on the community in general, or on the polity, or on the regime. Such that if a child is denied essentials, then that child's parents are the ones penalized, and criminally even. This establishes the rights of the child.

You are the one arguing that there is no moral obligation on the mother of an unborn child here. You are the one arguing that the unborn child has no rights. That is the unjust, and atrocious view here. Being victimized by a first degree rights violator (a violent criminal) doesn't absolve you of your moral obligations, such as that you, if you're a parent, have an obligation to take care of your own children.

 

[User Name]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1576048146118868993

 

[Yorzhik]

No, I never had an abortion and could not have any biological children. Not by my choice.

Ok. It's just that when I find someone who is reasonable on some issues, but irrational about killing innocent babies before they are born using the same explaining logic, there is some unusual psychological reason for the inconsistency.

Simply women bear a pregnancy so they deserve a voice when the pregnancy occured by no intent or mistake of their own AND when the fetus has not developed beyond an immature state.

The woman deserves a voice, and the child deserves a voice, too. Like kind people are apt to do, we follow Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.

Emotion comes in when you turn a single cell into a baby and a potential human substrate into a human being. You ignore the actual individual when you do that.

The logic is clear; a human begins at conception. We all started at a single cell. The only way to acknowledge the individual is to recognize them from the beginning.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Ok. It's just that when I find someone who is reasonable on some issues, but irrational about killing innocent babies before they are born using the same explaining logic, there is some unusual psychological reason for the inconsistency.

The woman deserves a voice, and the child deserves a voice, too. Like kind people are apt to do, we follow Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.

The logic is clear; a human begins at conception. We all started at a single cell. The only way to acknowledge the individual is to recognize them from the beginning.

It is not irrational to let a woman decide what is to be done with a microscopic reproductive process that has been started within her very person against her will. The woman's rights trump the rudimentary human's rights. The fetus is not equal. One human is inside the other using resources, the other is not similarly situated. The human embryo has the odds against her even being born under normal conditions. The woman was definitely born. So, stop pretending logic is your side.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is not irrational to let a woman decide what is to be done with a microscopic reproductive process that has been started within her very person against her will.

It's immoral, because there's an innocent baby involved.

The woman's rights

What rights, specifically?

Because NONE of the God-given rights which ALL HUMANS HAVE contradict His enduring command "You shall not murder."

trump the rudimentary human's rights.

The same reasoning was used by Hitler to murder millions of Jews.

"The superior Aryan's rights trump the rudimentary Jews' rights."

That's of course why it was WRONG.

The baby's right to life trumps the woman's control of her body.

Also, it's not a "right" for a woman to kill her baby. It's called murder.

The fetus is not equal.

Fetus means baby.

The baby is a human being just like his or her mother, and has the same God given rights she has. The baby is just as much a person as the mother, and 50% of the time the baby is also female. What about her reproductive rights? Doesn't she get a say in whether she can have children?

One human is inside the other using resources,

The very fact that there are TWO humans involved, and you even recognize it, means that it is MURDER to intentionally kill at least one of them.

the other is not similarly situated.

So what? BOTH are human beings.

The human embryo has the odds against her even being born under normal conditions.

The odds of the baby making it all the way through the 9 month gestation period have NOTHING to do with whether it's ok to kill the baby.

The woman was definitely born. So, stop pretending logic is your side.

Says the one using a non-sequitur to try to justify the murder of innocent children.

 

[TomO]

It is not irrational to let a woman decide...

It appears that it is.

The woman's rights trump the rudimentary human's rights.

Case in point.

 

[Right Divider]

It is not irrational to let a woman decide what is to be done with a microscopic reproductive process that has been started within her very person against her will.

The classic use of demeaning language to dehumanize the child.
A child is a child.

The woman's rights trump the rudimentary human's rights.

Nope.

The fetus is not equal.

Indeed, it is.

One human is inside the other using resources, the other is not similarly situated.

Irrelevant... red herring.

The human embryo has the odds against her even being born under normal conditions.

So if the odds are poor .... just kill it?

The woman was definitely born.

Once in a great while, you say something that is true.

So, stop pretending logic is your side.

Irony to the max.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

It's immoral, because there's an innocent baby involved.

Yes. It is immoral, but less immoral than violating the rights of an innocent woman.

What rights, specifically?

The right of liberty, privacy, and autonomy over your own body.

Because NONE of the God-given rights which ALL HUMANS HAVE contradict His enduring command "You shall not murder."

Your views on God's rights are just your opinion.

The same reasoning was used by Hitler to murder millions of Jews.

"The superior Aryan's rights trump the rudimentary Jews' rights."

Not one Jew was located inside a German.

That's of course why it was WRONG.

The baby's right to life trumps the woman's control of her body.

True. Unless the woman had no part in the loss of control over her biology.

Also, it's not a "right" for a woman to kill her baby. It's called murder.

The embryo is at once a human quasi-individual and part of the woman's body (at early stages). That is the crux of the problem.

Fetus means baby.

Have you ever seen parents stroll in the park with their fetus. Hire a babysitter for their fetus? Have you ever seen someone legally store five babies a freezer?

The baby is a human being just like his or her mother,

A fetus is a human unlike her mother.

and has the same God given rights she has.

Not until viable.

The baby is just as much a person as the mother, and 50% of the time the baby is also female. What about her reproductive rights? Doesn't she get a say in whether she can have children?

It would be great if they could be safely extracted and men could be pregnant, then you could bear the children of rapists. It could be your mission in life.

very fact that there are TWO humans involved, and you even recognize it, means that it is MURDER to intentionally kill at least one of them.

You know several examples when two people are involved and it is not murder.

So what? BOTH are human beings.

Says the one using a non-sequitur to try to justify the murder of innocent children.

People's stage in life is considered the n end of life care all the time. Never heard you complain.