Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

[Si modo]

So you chose to inflict yourself with a shattered knee?? Sorry, Si, but that comparison makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, I didn't choose to have a shattered knee at all. I did choose an activity, a legal one, that led to my having a shattered knee, though.

I also chose to have medical intervention to get my body back to its condition before my knee was shattered.

So you find nothing morally wrong with killing an unborn child? ....

There's a lot going on in this question, so I'll single it out.

If I thought that a fetus before it is a viable being outside the wound was even remotely equivalent to a 'child', then yes, I would find something morally wrong with it.

As most abortions are done long before a fetus is a viable being outside of a woman's womb, I find nothing morally wrong with them.

.... It's just a 'condition' like a shattered knee? ....

Yes.

.... You equate something physically wrong with the body, such as a shattered knee or cancer, with something that the female human body was designed naturally for, to create life?

The male body is also designed to create life.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8]YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life}[/ame]

 

[Samson]

So you don't know anyone that's had one then? Is a woman who has one 'pro abortion' in your view then? Or are you naively stating that no one is pro abortion even though there are millions of them going on every year in this country?

Usually when one asks a question, they don't answer it in the next sentence and throw in a question mark. Such loaded questions are pointless anyway since Mani is specifically saying in his personal experience that's he never met someone who was pro abortion.

You've already made the assumption however that because someone has an abortion, they must be ""pro" abortion." That's a very poor illogical assumption to make in the first place.

So you're implying someone that is anti-abortion would have an abortion? Weak.

So you're implying everyone will act based on their moral convictions alone?

 

[jillian]

Sorry, Jill, but that's pure bullshit. So all of these women out there having abortions as a form of birth control, which is the majority of them, are all anti abortion??

real classy post, dear.... not.

you are either intentionally obtuse or have no reading comprehension skills.

people do things sometimes because they have to. not all choices we have to make are happy ones.

or is that beyond you?

stop letting your religious zealotry color the way you look at POLITICAL issues.

In other words, you aren't the moral arbiter of others' decions.

getting it yet?

 

[Samson]

So you find nothing morally wrong with killing an unborn child? It's just a 'condition' like a shattered knee? You equate something physically wrong with the body, such as a shattered knee or cancer, with something that the female human body was designed naturally for, to create life?

As a male, I feel it is MORE "morally wrong" to tell females what the can and cannot do with their bodies.

Well, good for you Samsom, when it is only their body in question, I completely agree. But, that's not the reality of the situation, which is what this thread was about. Science has shown that it's not just their body, it's ending another person's life.

I'm not arguing that ending a life is good.

I'm arguing that allowing females to make their own decisions about their own bodies is better.

 

[Si modo]

So you find nothing morally wrong with killing an unborn child? It's just a 'condition' like a shattered knee? You equate something physically wrong with the body, such as a shattered knee or cancer, with something that the female human body was designed naturally for, to create life?

As a male, I feel it is MORE "morally wrong" to tell females what the can and cannot do with their bodies.

Well, good for you Samsom, when it is only their body in question, I completely agree. But, that's not the reality of the situation, which is what this thread was about. Science has shown that it's not just their body, it's ending another person's life.

'Person'? Nah.

 

[Newby]

No, I didn't choose to have a shattered knee at all. I did choose an activity, a legal one, that led to my having a shattered knee, though.

I also chose to have medical intervention to get my body back to its condition before my knee was shattered.

So you find nothing morally wrong with killing an unborn child? ....

There's a lot going on in this question, so I'll single it out.

If I thought that a fetus before it is a viable being outside the wound was even remotely equivalent to a 'child', then yes, I would find something morally wrong with it.

As most abortions are done long before a fetus is a viable being outside of a woman's womb, I find nothing morally wrong with them.

.... It's just a 'condition' like a shattered knee? ....

Yes.

.... You equate something physically wrong with the body, such as a shattered knee or cancer, with something that the female human body was designed naturally for, to create life?

The male body is also designed to create life.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8]YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life}[/ame]

Thank you for your straight up answer. I just completely disagree with you and that is what the op is all about. Are you also for destroying any other human life that is not 'viable' on its own as well? And how do you define 'viable'? Isn't that the big question? A newborn is not 'viable' on its own, so how are you drawing that particular line with a child that is only 3 or 4 months along in the womb?

The male doesn't carry that life. I'm very surprised that you would consider being pregnant with a child a medical 'condition' as if there was something wrong with the body or it wasn't functioning as designed or was injured in some way. Do you have children of your own?

 

[Newby]

Usually when one asks a question, they don't answer it in the next sentence and throw in a question mark. Such loaded questions are pointless anyway since Mani is specifically saying in his personal experience that's he never met someone who was pro abortion.

You've already made the assumption however that because someone has an abortion, they must be ""pro" abortion." That's a very poor illogical assumption to make in the first place.

So you're implying someone that is anti-abortion would have an abortion? Weak.

So you're implying everyone will act based on their moral convictions alone?

I'm implying that they're acting on their lack of moral convictions when they chose to kill their own child.

 

[Samson]

So you're implying someone that is anti-abortion would have an abortion? Weak.

So you're implying everyone will act based on their moral convictions alone?

I'm implying that they're acting on their lack of moral convictions when they chose to kill their own child.

I'm implying that there's a huge gulf between having moral convictions, and acting on them.

Newby, one is a heluva lot easier than the other, and I don't wish that anyone ever need to find this out the hard way.

 

[Newby]

Sorry, Jill, but that's pure bullshit. So all of these women out there having abortions as a form of birth control, which is the majority of them, are all anti abortion??

real classy post, dear.... not.

you are either intentionally obtuse or have no reading comprehension skills.

people do things sometimes because they have to. not all choices we have to make are happy ones.

or is that beyond you?

stop letting your religious zealotry color the way you look at POLITICAL issues.

In other words, you aren't the moral arbiter of others' decions.

getting it yet?

Talk about class, Jill, I wouldn't put you at the head of the class either. You lose the argument when you start to throw personal insults out that have nothing to do with the topic.

My point has nothing to do with religious zealotry? Why are you trying so hard to defend people who have abortions if you yourself have an anti-abortion/pro choice view? I can slightly see a point with someone saying that someone else has the right to decide what to do with their body, but would never choose to have an abortion themselves because they see it as morally wrong. But, when a person has the abortion, then they are indeed pro abortion, to say otherwise is ridiculous and to try to defend that is also ridiculous and disingenuous.

And none of those other difficult 'choices' that people people make that aren't necessarily happy, result in the death of someone else's life. To try to parallel them is also being dishonest.

 

[Newby]

As a male, I feel it is MORE "morally wrong" to tell females what the can and cannot do with their bodies.

Well, good for you Samsom, when it is only their body in question, I completely agree. But, that's not the reality of the situation, which is what this thread was about. Science has shown that it's not just their body, it's ending another person's life.

I'm not arguing that ending a life is good.

I'm arguing that allowing females to make their own decisions about their own bodies is better.

So you just completely ignore the other life that is involved?

 

[Newby]

As a male, I feel it is MORE "morally wrong" to tell females what the can and cannot do with their bodies.

Well, good for you Samsom, when it is only their body in question, I completely agree. But, that's not the reality of the situation, which is what this thread was about. Science has shown that it's not just their body, it's ending another person's life.

'Person'? Nah.

Define 'person', and support why your definition of it should be what the rest of society accepts? Or should everyone be allowed to have their own definition of it and act accordingly?

 

[Samson]

Well, good for you Samsom, when it is only their body in question, I completely agree. But, that's not the reality of the situation, which is what this thread was about. Science has shown that it's not just their body, it's ending another person's life.

I'm not arguing that ending a life is good.

I'm arguing that allowing females to make their own decisions about their own bodies is better.

So you just completely ignore the other life that is involved?

No, I'm willing to compromise.

 

[Newby]

So you're implying everyone will act based on their moral convictions alone?

I'm implying that they're acting on their lack of moral convictions when they chose to kill their own child.

I'm implying that there's a huge gulf between having moral convictions, and acting on them.

Newby, one is a heluva lot easier than the other, and I don't wish that anyone ever need to find this out the hard way.

I agree with you, and I believe everyone does have to make their own choices, yet in our society whenever those choices harm or kill another, then there are consequences to typically pay, except when a mother kills her own child.

 

[jillian]

And none of those other difficult 'choices' that people people make that aren't necessarily happy, result in the death of someone else's life. To try to parallel them is also being dishonest.

my religious beliefs allow me to make those choices.

your's don't. that's fine.

now stay out of mine.

the issue isn't about your sense of moral superiority. the issue is about when GOVERNMENT has the right to intervene.

You seem to have trouble separating your uber-righteousness from governmental action. i wonder, is it intentional? or are you just not smart enough to get it?

 

[Samson]

I'm implying that they're acting on their lack of moral convictions when they chose to kill their own child.

I'm implying that there's a huge gulf between having moral convictions, and acting on them.

Newby, one is a heluva lot easier than the other, and I don't wish that anyone ever need to find this out the hard way.

I agree with you, and I believe everyone does have to make their own choices, yet in our society whenever those choices harm or kill another, then there are consequences to typically pay, except when a mother kills her own child.

So, how are you willing to pay for your choice to prevent the abortion of unwanted children?

 

[Newby]

And none of those other difficult 'choices' that people people make that aren't necessarily happy, result in the death of someone else's life. To try to parallel them is also being dishonest.

my religious beliefs allow me to make those choices.

your's don't. that's fine.

now stay out of mine.

the issue isn't about your sense of moral superiority. the issue is about when GOVERNMENT has the right to intervene.

You seem to have trouble separating your uber-righteousness from governmental action. i wonder, is it intentional? or are you just not smart enough to get it?

Religion has nothing to do with my point of view, Jill, you brought it up and if that's what you have to think in order to make yourself feel better, go for it. Morals and ethics are used every day to pass legislation, i.e. Healthcare and many more, so to try to go there with your argument is a losing propostition.

 

[Newby]

I'm implying that there's a huge gulf between having moral convictions, and acting on them.

Newby, one is a heluva lot easier than the other, and I don't wish that anyone ever need to find this out the hard way.

I agree with you, and I believe everyone does have to make their own choices, yet in our society whenever those choices harm or kill another, then there are consequences to typically pay, except when a mother kills her own child.

So, how are you willing to pay for your choice to prevent the abortion of unwanted children?

I'm not sure I understand your question? Should we allow people who harm or kill others in society go free because we have no other recourse or don't want to spend the money?

 

[Si modo]

So you find nothing morally wrong with killing an unborn child? ....

There's a lot going on in this question, so I'll single it out.

If I thought that a fetus before it is a viable being outside the wound was even remotely equivalent to a 'child', then yes, I would find something morally wrong with it.

As most abortions are done long before a fetus is a viable being outside of a woman's womb, I find nothing morally wrong with them.

Yes.

.... You equate something physically wrong with the body, such as a shattered knee or cancer, with something that the female human body was designed naturally for, to create life?

The male body is also designed to create life.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8]YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life}[/ame]

Thank you for your straight up answer. I just completely disagree with you and that is what the op is all about. ....

The OP is all over the place, to be honest. For instance, I am not in favor of any government funds for abortions. None at all.

But, we seem to have focused on the 'what is life' issue brought up in the OP as well. So, I'll stick with that.

.... Are you also for destroying any other human life that is not 'viable' on its own as well? ....

Sure I am. My hangnail is human - has human DNA, the cells can replicate, etc. - and I want that destroyed. My friend's appendix was human, too. It had DNA, it's cells could replicate, but it needed to be destoyed as well.

Invoking that wonderfully warm and fuzzy term, 'life', when discussing this topic is all well and fine, but one needs to be a lot more specific when using it in this topic. The word human is also an adjective. I have a human hangnail. I have ahuman spleen. If one wishes to use it as a vowel, as I suspect you do, a human being is more specific and leads to less confusion.

.... And how do you define 'viable'? Isn't that the big question? ....

Yes, it is the big question as it applies to a human being, because a lot of human tissue is not at all viable when separated from the mother being.

.... A newborn is not 'viable' on its own, .....

It looks like you've gone ahead and defined viable on your own. Perhaps this is where we should focus for the moment as I say a newborn is indeed viable.

 

[Samson]

I agree with you, and I believe everyone does have to make their own choices, yet in our society whenever those choices harm or kill another, then there are consequences to typically pay, except when a mother kills her own child.

So, how are you willing to pay for your choice to prevent the abortion of unwanted children?

I'm not sure I understand your question? Should we allow people who harm or kill others in society go free because we have no other recourse or don't want to spend the money?

No, I mean how many unaborted children are you willing to adopt?

 

[Si modo]

Well, good for you Samsom, when it is only their body in question, I completely agree. But, that's not the reality of the situation, which is what this thread was about. Science has shown that it's not just their body, it's ending another person's life.

'Person'? Nah.

Define 'person', and support why your definition of it should be what the rest of society accepts? Or should everyone be allowed to have their own definition of it and act accordingly?

As I am a big proponent of the 1st Amendment, folks can define anything they want however they want, right or wrong.

I happen to have a good grasp on what a human being is.