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

I am pro choice but only because I don't feel like it's my place to force another woman to go through a pregnancy/delivery, sometimes (although this may sound cruel) I think the child might be better off than being born to a parent who really does not want him or her. Some people who might get an abortion could be mentally disabled, physically challenged, or emotionally unstable, perhaps an alcoholic/drug addict, etc., etc.

Personally, speaking for myself, I am pro life and would not abort a pregnancy and would feel terrible about it. Yes, I would feel cruel and horrible and wouldn't do that to my unborn baby, but that is not for me to decide for another person. I do wish some people would give more consideration to adoption though, but it's ultimately that person's choice and not mine.

 

In Canada, the Criminal Code section 223

http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/223-when-child-becomes-human-being

I can't speak for the USA, since I don't live there.

"God" is irrelevant, since not everyone is a believer.

 

According to your profile, you are male. Fox was responding to you.

 

I'm more inclined to call it presumptuous than cruel.

Every child is born to flawed parents, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

I think my point is clear. I don't feel obligated to defend it. That is how I feel about it. If you don't like it, too bad.

 

Is abortion diabolical, tortuous, and evil?
I observe that in later posts you specifically refer to the details of the late-term abortion (e.g. crushing the skull). QUESTION: Does that mean you have no objection to an abortion procedure that takes place before the skull is formed? QUESTION: If a woman took a couple of pills to kill a parasite (or an organized clump of human cells behaving like a parasite) would you consider that a "diabolical, tortuous, evil form of murder of innocents" ? I would not.

Is the zygote/embryo/fetus innocent?
I believe the zef is not a person, so the concept of innocence or guilt has no meaning. You seem to believe the zef is a person so we must assume (in your world) it is acting for its own selfish motives to accept freely given resources from the host (if she wants to create a baby) or to steal resources from the host (if she does not want to create a baby).

Is abortion the same as murder?
Not in my opinion. The reason is that you need a functional cerebrum to be a person (not just a bony shell with some brain cells inside it). When your cerebral function fails, they remove the feeding tubes and allow your body (which is merely a life support system for the mind) die. That, by the way, is not murder.

 

With me it was nurse Christine Chappell of Star Trek (sigh)..

 

Gene Roddenberry was tapping her damn him.

 

I've learned the best way to go through life is to not care too much about what other people do. It's less stressful that way. By all means, express your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs when you can, but don't rely on being able to change people's minds, especially liberals.

Abortion rights, in my opinion, should not be changed because as the past has told us, it will be done anyways, just in a less "proper" way. Black Market abortions is not something you want to be prevalent again. I don't believe the government should pay a dime for them, but other than that, the decision is on that individual and they have to live with it.

 

Quite so, Bill.

I am just looking to see why Left comes away with the understanding that the god of the Bible finds anything even mildly wrong with killing things...let alone immoral.

 

Fortunately, your sister (in-law?) probably lived in a state where she had a choice. If she lived in a state where she was required to get an abortion in that case (because it is not in the best interests of the state to allow the birth of more disabled people) she might have been devastated when the state required her to get an abortion. If she lived in a state where she was required to give birth (because the state has decided that ALL abortions are illegal) would she really be sure she had made that decision freely? How many women (when the decision to keep the child is FORCED upon them) might resent the child because they did not have the OPPORTUNITY to make the decision of their own free will?

 

No, that's NOT cruel, you cant' be cruel to someone who never existed. I think it's very cruel to force women to give birth to a child they don't want or can't afford, cruel to the woman but even more cruel to the kid (BOTH of whom actually exist).

In an abortion the fetus is not tortured to death, it feels nothing so I don't know why you think it's so "cruel and horrible"...and it certainly doesn't resemble a "baby" in any way.

Why do you favor adoption? You want kids to know their mother didn't want them. You want kids stuck in a system where if they're not white and perfect they may spend their life until they're 18 ? May be abused?

Why would a woman give up 9 months of her life, suffer financial/career/educational setbacks, temporary and permanent damage to her body, the pain of pregnancy and childbirth
just to give someone else a kid and make some OTHER people feel all warm and fuzzy????? That would be NUTS!

That said, it's good you realize what other women do is not your concern or business, some people aren't that intelligent ...

Some people who might get an abortion could be mentally disabled, physically challenged, or emotionally unstable, perhaps an alcoholic/drug addict, etc., etc.

Personally, speaking for myself, I am pro life and would not abort a pregnancy and would feel terrible about it. Yes, I would feel cruel and horrible and wouldn't do that to my unborn baby, but that is not for me to decide for another person. I do wish some people would give more consideration to adoption though, but it's ultimately that person's choice and not mine.

 

He did reference that he knew some women that felt as he did so I had to explain to him that women can be just as patronizing, condescending, and sexist as he is.
He is so sexist that he thought women couldn't feel that way, he thinks they all must feel the same way since they're women.

 

You: ""I've learned the best way to go through life is to not care too much about what other people do""

Good thought, too bad conservatives never heed it....and want bigger government to control what women do.



Maybe you could change a "liberals" mind if actual FACTS were presented....but since none ever have been presented by Aniti-Choice, Anti-Women, Anti-Abortion factions , that's pretty tough.

I am liberal and all the whining emotional, erroneous, sexist crap about abortion doesn't phase me.....

 

If they believe abortion is wrong, then they are being allowed to exercise their free will on the issue. If they believe they have the right to demand that all other women follow the doctrine they have chosen, then they are either misguided, or brain-washed, or so egotistical that they believe their religious beliefs are more important than the beliefs of others and should be imposed on others.

Do you have any examples of cases where a jury agreed with this rather bizarre premise? In all the cases I could find, the person who hires the hit man is just as guilty of the murder. In your world (if your beliefs are correct) every woman who gets an abortion should be sentenced to life in prison (or the death penalty) depending on state of residence.

Suppose they develop a procedure for late-term abortions that severs the umbilical cord and uses drugs to kill the fetus immediately (before they have to do any of the crushing and cutting that seems to be your only objection to abortion)? Would you then allow other people to exercise their God given free will?

The dictionary is written by people who note how words are being used by both the informed and the uninformed. It seems odd that you will accept the dictionary as your authority, but when others point out that the law (which is developed with thoughtful consideration of the rights of the persons involved) supports abortion (even late-term abortion for fetal abnormalities) you reject the law as an authority. Clearly the law represents more authority than the dictionary, but the law does not treat the zygote/embryo/fetus as a person.

Do you agree that children are persons? They do not have the right to endanger the life of another person. Even children can be detained and removed from the situation when they become a danger to others. If you want to consider the fetus a person you have to prove that the mind/spirit/soul is already inhabiting the body before birth. Even then, you have an uphill battle to prove that a woman (who is clearly a person) cannot defend herself when she fears that she might be harmed by the fetal invader.

Yes you do want to take away the rights of the pregnant women who disagree with your religious view of when the mind/spirit/soul inhabits the body. Whether she agreed to sex or was raped, if she wants an abortion then she obviously did not consent to having a baby. The zygote does not ask the host for permission... it takes what it wants for its own selfish reasons (if you assume the zygote already has a mind/spirit/soul of its own)... or it is just acting on blind instinct (if you agree that the zygote is not yet inhabited by a mind/spirit/soul).

QUESTION: When do you believe the human body is inhabited by a soul/spirit/mind?

 

This is could be evidence that the soul/spirit/mind exists apart from (and before) a body is formed for that soul to inhabit. If God had formed a body for Jeremiah a few months earlier, and that woman had gotten an abortion, this statement would still be true for the woman who eventually became the host to the body Jeremiah eventually inhabited.

There are approximately 1,000 verses in the Bible that suggest that the heart is the seat of our soul. That is why (when I was a young boy) many religious people were appalled that doctors were thinking about transplanting the heart of a dead person into a living body. They thought the soul of the living person would be displaced by the soul of the dead person (and they had plenty of Biblical ammunition for that belief). After many successful transplants, we see that Joe is still Joe after getting a new heart from Bill (or Mary) so we know this interpretation of the Bible was wrong. Perhaps your interpretation of Jeremiah was wrong too.

 

Edited to add disclaimer in blue

 

Your post is full of factual fail, but it doesn't really matter. The Trump Court will correct your erroneous thinking better than I could.

 

A typical "trump" response, all bluster and no facts.

Obviously you don't believe in checks and balances or a democratic government and have the hilariously erroneous idea that repealing RvW will stop abortions....or that Trump will try to repeal it...

 

Whew....go get some work done and go to dinner.....4 more pages. I will try to wade through a few before church this morning but there certainly are some opinions here for me to see.

Yes, as I mentioned in a previous post, when the two cells join at fertilization, it is life....and since they are human cells, it is human life.

Correct, there is only one God, although in triune form of God the father, God the son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit. A bit difficult for humans to wrap their mortal minds around but if I could understand and explain everything about God he wouldn't be God would he?

You are correct, but the distinction is with killing and murder. God says man should not murder. Yet, God has killed entire populations. I would be more than happy to get into an extended conversation with you on this as it is something that I had struggled with facing for years in my Christian walk. I will shorten here to simply say, we not God, His ways and means are so far above ours we cannot comprehend His purposes, methods, etc. He is sovereign in all rights. But, that is God, not us, therefore we should not be making the same decisions. With the new covenant with God through Jesus Christ, He is withholding his wrath until His chosen time so some of His previous methods from the old testament are "on hold". I'm sure a totally unpopular answer here but Biblical none the less.

 

Trump doesn't need to repeal a law that has not been passed by Congress....I voted for Stein.....and your factual losing streak continues

 

Your "fact" stream never started....so you don't want RvW repealed....good, it won't be

 

No, removing the fetus itself is an act of aggression, and doing so would be the same murder, in my opinion anyway. But, I certainly can appreciate your proposed method in an act of possible compromise.

When the man and the woman joined together, willingly, they agree to the natural right to life of their offspring. Once the two cells join, it is a human life. Should the fetus die of natural causes, then it would not be murder, but direct intervention by man to cause such would be.

Again, in my opinion.

 

As you may have read in my previous posts, I have asked to continue the religious portions of this conversation in that forum but I am not aware that anyone has started it there. If there are those that would like to carry it over there, please let me know and I will certainly join you.

But, religion is a portion of my argument and since others have asked, I've answered their questions. As some have answered my original question.

Per my previous request, can you site me the law that says a fetus is not a person until born? I'm not being obtuse, I'm just very interested in that facet of the argument.

 

NO, if the fetus is considered a "person" (your view) then it's removal is self defense. IT attacks the woman first.

I've seen that this is difficult for you to comprehend but even if Joe invites Sam into his house that does not give Sam the right to harm Joe and Joe has every right to stop any harm Sam may do to him. YOU and I and Joe have this right...and you wish to take that right away from pregnant women.