Sincere request to help me understand why you feel abortion is not murder.

In this forum calling people ignorant is considered offensive (even if you can't see that calling someone ignorant is offensive,) and against the Rooools.....

Yes, an abortion is a simple medical procedure and fake photos don't change a thing. Do you faint at the sight of blood?

AND to get back to the TOPIC, it's not murder.....

 

Your bible is NOT the Law of the Land.

The Law of the Land stipulates that ONLY natural BORN PERSONS are entitled to constitutional rights.

You are entitled to your own freedom of religion but you have no right whatsoever to impose your own beliefs on the secular Law of the Land and other citizens.

The Law of the Land is what defines a person and a fetus does not fit that definition.

Abortions that require medical intervention are always done under anesthetic which automatically ensures that the fetus does not feel any pain whatsoever during the procedure.

The vast majority of all abortions occur prior to viability of the fetus outside of the uterus.

The few exceptions to that procedure are ALWAYS done because of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned. Failure to perform those abortions could result in the deaths of those women. Is that what you want?

The disinformation on anti-abortion websites has been discredited and utterly debunked over and over again. There is nothing to be gained from doing it again.

If you genuinely want to know the answers that you are allegedly seeking in the OP then you will go to other websites that provide factual data about abortions instead. You can begin with Guttmacher and the CDC.

There is nothing "evil" about a woman making a choice. You don't know the circumstances regarding her physical and/or financial status. Your wife can make her own choice and that is why it is called a choice. What you are advocating is to deprive all women of their right to make decisions that apply to their own body.

Would you be happy if some government body was to decide that you must sacrifice one of your kidneys or a lobe of your liver without your having any choice in the matter?

Abortion is a choice, either to have one or don't have one. Furthermore this is a PRIVATE choice that only the woman concerned gets to make. That is what freedom is all about. Her choice, not yours or anyone else gets to decide for her.

 

Saying that it is morally wrong to obstruct what is a regrettable necessity to deny this necessity to women in need is far from celebrating that these things occur. Just out of interest where would you draw the line in denying abortion? None at all, some for health reasons? Where is that line.

 

Priests for life??? Keeping aside the known issues that have recently come to light with regard to catholic priests why would I look at a blatantly biased site? Link to medical texts - oh! That is right! They do not have scared emotive pictures

 

I take the position that fetuses ARE NOT humans...and I am not ignorant.

Your words are offensive to me.

As for the OP...he bases his morality of this procedure on the teachings of the god of the Bible...and he never completely addressed the question I asked regarding the teachings of the god of the Bible about killing.

The god of the Bible...ordered its followers to do lots of killing...including the killing of innocent babies and toddlers that were without question...HUMANS. Basing morality objections to abortion based on the god of the Bible is absurd and illogical. Basing it on one's personal morality should be limited to what one does one's self...not what society in general should do.

 

But obviously LYING isn't offensive to you.

I NEVER posted "fetuses are not humans".....is lying so ingrained in christianity that believers think it's their right?!!?


I think those who think an abortion is as complicated as brain or heart surgery are simply ignorant and wish to lie about what actually happens in an abortion.

 

Even surgical abortion is a fairly simple procedure. Years ago, the Jane Collective trained housewives how to perform them, and they did so successfully for years. Nowadays medical abortions make it possible to have "abortion by mail." Fetuses are human (adjective) but they are not "humans" as most people would agree that the presence of a working brain is essential to being classified "A human."

 

People have rights by virtue of their citizenship and status as legal persons not as human beings, therefore a fetus is not a person until born under common law. Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights.

roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147. the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb.

Unborn Victims of Violence types laws are, in reality, a further extension of the the females consent rights allowing courts to impose greater penalties onto criminals that violate her right to decide whether to remain pregnant or not.

 

Great, I hope you have that philosophy concerning women who decide to have an abortion .. "you have no right to tell" them "how to feel! Got it?"

 

Nearly every single one of those pictures has been shown to be fake or misrepresentation of the facts, where pro-lifers have stated it was a late-term abortion without bothering to detail the reason for that abortion and that is just plain dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd suggest looking up what attack means, if you think having a debate on a subject is attacking then perhaps you should refrain from entering into debates.

 

The vast majority of abortions ARE simple procedures as they occur well before any of your pictures (~89% occur in the first 12 weeks), add to this the misrepresentation of those pictures as not a single one of them give any indication as to why the abortion took place at that time, and that many of them have been proven to be fakes all adds up to the "Priests for life" being little better than liars.

Please do post where Fox has EVERY said that fetuses are not human . .don't bother looking because I know you cannot, so yet again pro-lifers are being economical with the truth.

 

The OP did not say directly that he is against all abortion, but he writes as if his only objection is to the harsh aspects of a late term abortion. He leaves us to read between the lines. Did he ever answer any of the questions regarding a change of position on abortion procedures that guarantee no pain is experienced by the fetus? No. So unless the original poster is saying this is his opinion and every pregnant woman should be free to make up her own mind, I have good reason to assume that the original poster is against all forms of abortion (and is using pro-life propaganda to equate ALL abortion with the most graphic form).

I fully support the right of any woman to choose to bear a child, but I equally support the right of any woman to get an abortion if she does not want to have a child right now. The responses from the original poster indicate that he would (if he had the power) prevent a woman from exercising her free will, or her legal right, to an abortion. I would be happy to be corrected by the original poster.

 

Do you realize pregnancies that spontaneously abort end up looking very much the same as those pictures? I guess you will have to blame God for those. Of course God does not always clean up after His work, so the doctors sometimes have to get in there and retrieve the body.

I suppose you could also be trying to make the point that the fetus looks like a person so that proves it is already a person?? That would be a big falsehood because you certainly wouldn't say a baby with a birth defect who can think, but does not look so much like a person, is NOT a person. Would you?

That is because it is the nature of the mind, NOT the nature of the body, that makes us persons. It is very likely that other species have the capacity for person-hood if we pay attention.
So are you saying that it is a person as long as it looks like a person?

 

Exactly where does her post fail?

 

Are people not allowed to feel that way? I mean, you can't control how other people are going to think about things. He has no power, so it is rather irrelevant, but he is still allowed to say how he feels about an issue on this board.

 

Murder is the illegal killing of people. Parents, brothers, sisters, Aunts, Uncles, friends, colleagues and so on. Murder, or any kind of death causes devastation to the people who know and love the victim because they know and loved him. or her. nd miss them terribly.

To give equal consideration to the death of the unborn is to trivialise the word murder to the point of banality.

A late abortion, whether natural or induced, is a disappointment or tragedy to the woman concerned and the potential father, if he is involved, but a much lesser tragedy to other people.

" How awful for them", we say. In the normal way, our concern and sympathy is kept entirely for the potential parents.

That's how it should be.

 

I've already posted that.

No. Overturning RvW would revert it back to the states, and for it to be murder, it would have to be made illegal and codified as murder in the statutes.

 

When those "feelings" are a direct result of ignorance and misconceptions then we have every right to correct them. I just love how many on this board believe that the free speech is only the prerogative of those who agree with their views and that debate is somehow hindering that right

 

If you saw somebody propagating a lie (like... abortion is the safest medical procedure in the world, even in the eighth month) wouldn't you feel compelled to challenge that?

When I see somebody equating ALL abortion to the harsh issues of a late-term abortion, I certainly feel compelled to challenge that position because (a) perhaps the poster is really that misinformed, and (b) because it may help other readers who find this discussion as they struggle with the issue of abortion.

I support your right to have a baby if that is what you want to do. Unlike the pro-life camp, I also support your right to get an abortion if you do not want to have a baby right now. I just hope, in either case, you (or anybody else) would make your decisions based on truth instead of lies.

 

Believe it. They just elected Trump.




"""""""When those "feelings" are a direct result of ignorance and misconceptions then we have every right to correct them"""""""


Excellent point.

 

It is interesting that in creating the thread the title is, "Sincere request to help me understand why you feel abortion is not murder" and then instead of trying to understand you just disagree with what's presented.

You make the claim that the fetus is a person and has a Right to Life so what is the foundation for that Right to Life? Your opinion? There's only one true authority on our Natural Rights based upon the Laws of Nature that everyone else either cites accurately or nefariously in addressing the Natural Rights of the Person and that's John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government because Locke provided the compelling argument that Natural Rights are a "truth" based upon nature.

So please provide the citations from the Second Treatise of Civil Government to support your opinion on the Natural Right to Life.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Be forewarned that you have to read and understand it from the beginning all because to simply pull from context often leads to erroneous conclusions. Pulling from context is a nefarious practice of those that want to misrepresent what Natural Rights are.

I'll also assist you because the criteria is very simple for Natural Rights of the People/Person.

A Natural Right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

From where I'm sitting the life of a fetus is dependent upon the woman, violates the Right of Self of the Woman, and imposes an involuntary obligation upon the woman to "house and feed" the fetus.

Failing on three out of the four criteria when even one failure disqualifies attribute from being a Natural Right seems pretty convincing to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It is interesting that in creating the thread the title is, "Sincere request to help me understand why you feel abortion is not murder" and then instead of trying to understand you just disagree with what's presented.

You make the claim that the fetus is a person and has a Right to Life so what is the foundation for that Right to Life? Your opinion? There's only one true authority on our Natural Rights based upon the Laws of Nature that everyone else either cites accurately or nefariously in addressing the Natural Rights of the Person and that's John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government because Locke provided the compelling argument that Natural Rights are a "truth" based upon nature.

So please provide the citations from the Second Treatise of Civil Government to support your opinion on the Natural Right to Life.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Be forewarned that you have to read and understand it from the beginning all because to simply pull from context often leads to erroneous conclusions. Pulling from context is a nefarious practice of those that want to misrepresent what Natural Rights are.

I'll also assist you because the criteria is very simple for Natural Rights of the People/Person.

A Natural Right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

From where I'm sitting the life of a fetus is dependent upon the woman, violates the Right of Self of the Woman, and imposes an involuntary obligation upon the woman to "house and feed" the fetus.

Failing on three out of the four criteria when even one failure disqualifies attribute from being a Natural Right seems pretty convincing to me.

 

The gravity of the term proceeds from the value of a human life - which you clearly don't understand, else you'd not imply said value is founded in the concerns of other people.

 

A human life only has the value another places upon it, and that is a fact even you adhere to.

What is obvious is that you value the unborn much more than the female.

 

Absolutely correct and you can live based upon your opinion. What you don't have a right to do in the United States is to force others to live based upon your opinion. It isn't those that oppose abortion that are a problem in America. It's those that seek to deny the woman's right to have an abortion by passing laws that deny access to abortion facilities. The anti-abortionists do not have a right to violate the Constitutionally protected Rights of the Woman.

 

The value of human life is subjective but we know what a person is worth:

Adjusted for inflation we're now worth about $5.75.