Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

questioner4 · Post by **questioner4** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:51 pm

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:37 pm

Abortion should of course be legal for reasons other than birth control and convenience.

WHAT????

I though I was confused before. But now you've knocked me off the map.

Previously you have said that abortion is first-degree murder. Murder does not become acceptable because it is associated with rape, incest, or medical emergency.

How can a possible case, built on logic and reason, change the definition of murder so easily?

DanZ

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:23 pm

Quote:
Abortion should of course be legal for reasons other than birth control and convenience.

WHAT????

I though I was confused before. But now you've knocked me off the map.

Previously you have said that abortion is first-degree murder. Murder does not become acceptable because it is associated with rape, incest, or medical emergency.

How can a possible case, built on logic and reason, change the definition of murder so easily?

You need to think more outside the box.

Ectopic pregnacies and natural miscarriages - where the child has perished - both need medical procedures for the health and life of the mother.

Again, the science of ultrasound can show what is and what isn't a living human being within the mothers womb.

If ultrasound was a part of the "choice" to have an abortion, then we would see the power of both empiricism and logic.

It is reasonable to believe that a woman would have a far different perspective on what "choice" she was making.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:50 pm

Ectopic pregnacies and natural miscarriages - where the child has perished - both need medical procedures for the health and life of the mother.

And your views when the child has not parished are?

DanZ

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:53 am

AlAyeti wrote: Ectopic pregnacies and natural miscarriages - where the child has perished - both need medical procedures for the health and life of the mother.

Just to clarify, would these medical procedures be taking place before or after the mother gets arrested for involuntary manslaughter?

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:45 am

Just to clarify, would these medical procedures be taking place before or after the mother gets arrested for involuntary manslaughter?

Wouldn't that entail using evidence?

Please look at the science behind ultra sound "technology." The "proof" is in the evidence.

I am not afriad of truth or facts. That is the basis of arresting someone for a crime is it not?

In fact, isn't DNA used extensively to PROVE a crime HAS been committed?

Consult an attorney if you would like an educated answer. But remember laws change constantly. What is OK today can be changed by a new law tomorrow, or striking down one that has existed.

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:57 pm

AlAyeti wrote:
Just to clarify, would these medical procedures be taking place before or after the mother gets arrested for involuntary manslaughter?
Wouldn't that entail using evidence?

It's a fairly clear-cut case really.

The mother engaged in reckless activity (sex and the resulting pregnancy) which resulted in the premature death of the embryo. The mother had no intention of killing it, she just engaged in activity which had a significant chance of killing it (more likely than the stereotypical "Man recklessly tosses brick over sidewalk, killing pedestrian beneath" scenario, at any rate). That's the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

If you wish to consider the bunch of cells a person, and abortion murder, then miscarriage is by definiton, involuntary manslaughter.

Consult an attorney if you would like an educated answer. But remember laws change constantly. What is OK today can be changed by a new law tomorrow, or striking down one that has existed.

So I take it that you now have some moral objection to laws against involuntary manslaughter?

I thought you guys were supposedly the one's who valued human life...

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:19 am

AlAyeti and all who wish to impose their moral views upon women not in your immediate family.

It is none of your business to try to control what a woman has occuring within her own body. These decisions are between her and those she trusts. If you have the ability to bear a child(with the serious health issues that involves), then you have the right to make decisions about if bearing a child is right for you without interference from ANYONE else(husbands included). Whether or not these decisions are in compliance with anyone elses moral opinion is irrelevant, the right to be in charge of your own body is to be left up to you.

If the girl is a minor she is not yet totally in charge of herself and her parents or guardian should be included in discussions about her decisions, but there must be an avenue for the girl to appeal to a judge, mainly because of the possibility of incest(father,brother,uncle), rape(anyone else), and health(mental,physical) of the girl.

When the feotus becomes able(normally, not prematurely) to live on it's own(without extraordinary medical proceedures) that feotus should be delivered. Adoption would be an available remedy for women who do not wish(for whatever reason) to raise the child. At this time the biological father's rights could be exercised. This also would be subject to court rulings determining the father's fitness, if contested.

I know the above does not meet with the approval of many sincere religious people, but this is America, where we are free to make such decisions for ourselves but not for others. This is the pro-choice position, it is also the pro-rights position. And just as a baby has very little right to make choices,a ten year old more and a sixteen year old even more rights, until the feotus is viable(able to live unassisted) the pregnant mother has all the rights concerning her body.

Grumpy

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:27 pm

All of this coming from not only a "male" (so I would assume "butt out" applies as well) but a former fetus.

The hyposcrisy of a living person agreeing with abortion is all too obvious.

AlAyeti and all who wish to impose their moral views upon women not in your immediate family.

Pulling the legs, arms and head off a human body comes from a moral view as well.

It is none of your business to try to control what a woman has occuring within her own body.

Does this inculde a female from conception? Science has proven that a person is just that by DNA.

These decisions are between her and those she trusts.

Does that include trusting people that will not show her what is happeing to the little human being aborted? Why not show a woman what is happening during the procedure? If it is such a good thing, then run off a tape recording like other kids of operations.

If you have the ability to bear a child(with the serious health issues that involves), then you have the right to make decisions about if bearing a child is right for you without interference from ANYONE else(husbands included).

Interesting that there are "womens rights" based on laws against sexism, but men get no such rights on what happens to "their" children. At what level of education does two wrongs make a right?

Whether or not these decisions are in compliance with anyone elses moral opinion is irrelevant, the right to be in charge of your own body is to be left up to you.

The fingers that typed the above was lucky they were not aborted. Of course seeing what happens when children are allowed to live is all too obvious as well.

If the girl is a minor she is not yet totally in charge of herself and her parents or guardian should be included in discussions about her decisions, but there must be an avenue for the girl to appeal to a judge, mainly because of the possibility of incest(father,brother,uncle), rape(anyone else), and health(mental,physical) of the girl.

Does this mean that a minor is not yet viable?

When the feotus becomes able(normally, not prematurely) to live on it's own(without extraordinary medical proceedures) that feotus should be delivered. Adoption would be an available remedy for women who do not wish(for whatever reason) to raise the child. At this time the biological father's rights could be exercised.

Litlle hypocritical. NOW the father is important. No, if the kid is the moms to do with what she wants then men should be free of any and all things to do with the womans child. Logic.

This also would be subject to court rulings determining the father's fitness, if contested.

But the father was fit to "father" a child. Why the hypocrisy now?

I know the above does not meet with the approval of many sincere religious people, but this is America, where we are free to make such decisions for ourselves but not for others.

I guess human rights organization have not yet gotten that news.

This is the pro-choice position, it is also the pro-rights position.

It is the don't look at an abortion while it's happening position, known as either pure ignorance or murder in the first degree.

And just as a baby has very little right to make choices,a ten year old more and a sixteen year old even more rights, until the feotus is viable(able to live unassisted) the pregnant mother has all the rights concerning her body.

Viabilty of a child not to survive without her mother extends long after birth.

Guess what, it is my business about people being hacked and cut into pieces at any age. Show a woman what is happening to her unwanted child by showing her the abortion.

It's hard to make a choice if you don't have the facts.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:25 pm

From "back in the day."

Josephus, Flavius, The works of Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston ; with an introductory essay by H. Stebbing, Philadelphia, 1966, pg. 374-375

Flavius Josephus, a well-known Jewish historian who described the destruction of Jerusalem, wrote: "The law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind."

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:34 pm

The problem is that the only real opposition to abortion is purely emotional. Once you start looking at things from a logical and reasonable standpoint, there is no way you can oppose some form of legal abortion, simply because there aren't a lot of other options. Adoption, while it can be a wonderful option, simply doesn't have enough willing families. There are many millions of children nationwide that will *NEVER* be adopted because there aren't enough adoptive families willing to take them in. So that brings us to either abortion or keeping the child and let's be honest, if the mother doesn't want the child in the first place, she's not going to be a good mother and raise a healthy, happy, productive offspring. Why in the world would ANYONE in their right mind want to force a woman who has no interest in a baby to keep one? That's just insane. Unwanted children get abused, mentally, physically and sexually, they do poorly in school because they have no parental support, they have a much higher chance of getting into drugs, teenage sex and... you guessed it, another unwanted pregnancy. And this is supposed to be compassionate? I don't think so.