pro-life people, is abortion okay here?

[ConHog]

The funniest part is, once again Sangha thinks he's "winning"

 

[sangha]

He is going to claim it is a religious argument because otherwise you would be for abortion.

No moron. I am saying that Charles has provided no justification for his opinion. All he did was state his opinion.

If you could post a non-religious justification, I would not call it religious. But so far, no one has posted one. All I see is non-religious people (and others) claiming that such a justification exists.

lol so I am not justified in not wanted to see any person killed? Dude you are an idiot. You do not have to be religious to be against murder.

A "fetus" is not "a person". "Abortion" is not "murder" and has never been considered murder by the law in the country

 

[manu1959]

So there are atheists who oppose medical care?

you asked for a non-religious justification...i gave you one...now you want to shift topics...good for you...

Nope. No atheist believes that. Your "non-religious justification" says "nature should be allowed" as if "nature" had it's own intentions.

Atheists don't believe that "nature" has a mind of its own nor do they oppose the "interference of man" when it comes to medical procedures

atheists do not believe god created heaven and earth and all living thngs...they believe it was a cosmic moment and that we evolved from nothing into what we are via evlolution and natural selection...if they are true to their belief system they should not interfer with that process .. or they are no different than cafeteria catholics....

 

[Charles_Main]

How about, because everyone in the US has the right to "LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

Even a potential person IMO. which a fetus is by any reasonable definition.

Man you take the cake dude.

 

[Gadawg73]

There are two sides to the abortion debate, you are either pro abortion or anti abortion. The other labels that keep popping up, ie pro life and pro choice are just political slogans to pander to emotions. People can easily have a position on the abortion issue that opposes abortion in most cases, but recognizes that there is a medical need for it in some cases. You do not get to label your opponents as hypocrites my applying labels to them and then claiming they are not following your labels. My biggest problem is that pro abortion side routinely lies about their position, and then claims the other side is hypocritical because they do not fit the false labels opposed upon them.

I would also like to point out that you often praise the ability of your side to have their own opinions, to bad you do not allow your opponents the same options. Are you actually afraid to debate with people who can demonstrate an ability to think for themselves?

No. It all boils down to being pro Constitution or anti Constitution. Either you are a strict conservative and believe in limiting the power of government or you want a liberal interpretation to allow government more power.
A liberal interpretation of the Constitution gives the power to government to stop SOME women, and allow the wealthy ones, from having an abortion.
A strict conservative never wants to give power to government, which always abuses it, and take away the rights of the people.

what are you babbling about? if we wanted a strict Constitutional view of it, then we need a SCTOUS ruling on when exactly is a fetus a human being and anything after that point is murder period. We will NEVER get that because then we will be in a situation where some women aren't allowed to terminate babies produced by rape or incest, or when it is a danger to the mother. In the meantime women who simply use abortion as a just in case method of birth control take advantage of that fact.

It's that simple, and arguing either way doesn't make sense.

Where have you been?
"danger to the mother" Who determines that? A doctor?
LOL. Many Doctors, just like any other profession, will do anything for $.
Again, a strict Constitutionalist would never grant the government more power. In this case the power would be to not prosecute the woman that paid off a doctor to get a "danger to the mother" free pass and to prosecute the poor woman that can not afford that get out of jail free card.
Strict conservatives live in the real world. Please join us.

 

[ConHog]

No moron. I am saying that Charles has provided no justification for his opinion. All he did was state his opinion.

If you could post a non-religious justification, I would not call it religious. But so far, no one has posted one. All I see is non-religious people (and others) claiming that such a justification exists.

lol so I am not justified in not wanted to see any person killed? Dude you are an idiot. You do not have to be religious to be against murder.

A "fetus" is not "a person". "Abortion" is not "murder" and has never been considered murder by the law in the country

As usual , wrong. Prior to Roe Vs Wade. abortion was in fact illegal in 30 states

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[manu1959]

No moron. I am saying that Charles has provided no justification for his opinion. All he did was state his opinion.

If you could post a non-religious justification, I would not call it religious. But so far, no one has posted one. All I see is non-religious people (and others) claiming that such a justification exists.

lol so I am not justified in not wanted to see any person killed? Dude you are an idiot. You do not have to be religious to be against murder.

A "fetus" is not "a person". "Abortion" is not "murder" and has never been considered murder by the law in the country

and the death penalty is not murder either as it is a criminal and not a person and is also sanctioned by the state....

 

[Charles_Main]

sangha Might very well be the most disgusting person I have ever come across. Not to mention the least intelligent. His arguments are like a cirlce jerk, Where he keeps making the most ignorant and appalling comments, and then says. "see I am winning"

The Idea that only a religious person has a justification to be against Abortion is perhaps the most ridicules argument I have ever heard.

I am against Abortion for any but the most extreme reasons because Ending a potential life just because you don't want a kid is just wrong. You do not have to believe in god to see that. You just have to have some compassion in your heart. Which sangha clearly does not.

Clearly he/she does not have any children. My opinion about Abortion changed dramatically the day I saw my first child inside my wife at 12 weeks. It was a life changing moment. There was no doubt in my mind at all that was person in there. Before that Day I was much more liberal on the idea of Abortion.

Now I see it as a necessary evil so to speak. We must keep it available for the extreme cases that justify it(rape, Incest, the life of the mother) but the fact that it is used mostly as birth control is a National embarrassment IMO.

over 2 million potential lives ended each year, and the vast majority for selfish reasons.

It is just wrong.

 

[AllieBaba]

No moron. I am saying that Charles has provided no justification for his opinion. All he did was state his opinion.

If you could post a non-religious justification, I would not call it religious. But so far, no one has posted one. All I see is non-religious people (and others) claiming that such a justification exists.

lol so I am not justified in not wanted to see any person killed? Dude you are an idiot. You do not have to be religious to be against murder.

A "fetus" is not "a person". "Abortion" is not "murder" and has never been considered murder by the law in the country

Oh REALLY?

How about Scott Peterson and his conviction of double murder; one murder being his unborn child?

Fucking loser.

 

[ConHog]

sangha Might very well be the most disgusting person I have ever come across. Not to mention the least intelligent. His arguments are like a cirlce jerk, Where he keeps making the most ignorant and appalling comments, and then says. "see I am winning"

The Idea that only a religious person has a justification to be against Abortion is perhaps the most ridicules argument I have ever heard.

I am against Abortion for any but the most extreme reasons because Ending a potential life just because you don't want a kid is just wrong. You do not have to believe in god to see that. You just have to have some compassion in your heart. Which sangha clearly does not.

Clearly he/she does not have any children. My opinion about Abortion changed dramatically the day I saw my first child inside my wife at 12 weeks. It was a life changing moment. There was no doubt in my mind at all that was person in there. Before that Day I was much more liberal on the idea of Abortion.

Now I see it as a necessary evil so to speak. We must keep it available for the extreme cases that justify it(rape, Incest, the life of the mother) but the fact that it is used mostly as birth control is a National embarrassment IMO.

over 2 million potential lives ended each year, and the vast majority for selfish reasons.

It is just wrong.

You a poopy head confab, can't come up with a non religious objection. abortion good. wash rinse , repeat

Did I do that right Sangha?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really do have a problem defending your own claim, don't you?

I still don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see are claims that it exists.

Which claim is it I have a problem defending?

Your claim that a non-religious justification for opposing abortion exists.

So? I posted a link to an atheist who opposes abortion, and you claimed he is really a religious nut because he opposes abortion. You are the one with a problem defending your position, not me.

Just because I can.

An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.

Is that another religious argument against abortion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that you have to lie proves you've got no argument

Please show where I said "atheists who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds"

Or will you run away from your own claims again?

Did you or did you not repeatedly claim that there is no non religious argument against abortion? If there is no non religious argument against abortion, then everyone who opposes it must do so based on a religious argument.

QED

Atheists oppose abortion on religious grounds.

Wrong. Some atheists are too stupid to realize that they have no justification for their position. They just feel that way, with no logic and no facts to support their opinion.

 

[ConHog]

Please I encourage EVERYONE to vote for Sangha here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-annoying-members-of-usmb-21.html#post2464504

 

[Meister]

natural selection...and evolution ......nature should be allowed to take its natural course without the interference of man....it is the only way we will evolve to our ultimate state of being....

So there are atheists who oppose medical care?

you asked for a non-religious justification...i gave you one...now you want to shift topics...good for you...

It's what sangha does when he knows he just got pwn'd

 

[Meister]

You really do have a problem defending your own claim, don't you?

I still don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see are claims that it exists.

How about an "opinion" from an athiest that thinks abortion kills a life?
Not every athiest believes in abortion....in fact, I know of one.

An opinion is not a justification; it's an opinion.

And I know that there are atheists who oppose abortion. However, they can't seem to justify their opposition

There is no better justification than their own belief....damn your a tool

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes he is.
Luckily a small and insignificant tool. Of the non-sharp variety.

 

[Meister]

Yes he is.
Luckily a small and insignificant tool. Of the non-sharp variety.

Are you talking about sangha being sharp as a marble?

 

[AllieBaba]

More like a rubber mallet.

 

[steeliniraq]

Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com

A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?

What about the majority of those who get abortions? You know the young adult who made a choice and is now killing a baby because they dont want to take responsibility or how about the couple of woman I know who are upper class and have had 2 and 3 abortions. Were they wrong? As for the 10 year old year its a horrible situation but please don't try to pull out the extreme situation and say this is why abortion is such a great thing. A great thing would be people taking some damn responsibility for their actions then we wouldn't have problems and issues like this.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.

You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father

Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez and her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA

Again, convicted for killing both the mother and her fetus

I think you should read your Scott Peterson link again.

On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the unborn baby she carried.

Sure looks like two separate convictions to me.