Christian Guidance on a past "debate"

[mstringer06]

This is my first post and I'm not sure if this is how its supposed to work but I'll give it a go. I usually stay away from these conversations unless I'm face to face in a mutually comfortable environment. However, the other day someone posted something on facebook that bothered me I couldn't help myself. As soon as I posted I had several people team up against me and became volatile. I know I was probably wrong in some things, but I would like to know I'm not alone in this. It has profanity but I removed it but had to leave something in its place to keep sentence structure. It's kind of long so Ill try to post 1/3 of it.

OP: I don’t care if Planned Parenthood provides nothing BUT abortion services. I don’t care if it’s a million-story abortion super park with abortion waterslides an abortion electrical parade. Abortion is legal. ABORTION IS LEGAL. If I read one more “defense� of Planned Parenthood that says “it’s not JUST abortions!� or “only 5% of what they do is abortion!. And abortions aren’t federally funded!� I’m going to abort myself. Abortion is legal, culturally necessary, and good for humanity. It has been and will be practiced for millennia. It is essential. It is a fact. By minimizing, denying or apologizing for this fact, you are allowing these venal anti-woman Nazis to frame this debate and continue to chip away at this essential right. Abortion is not tragic. It is not painful. It is a fact. It is a right. Demand it, fight for it, and for the sake of the women who have given their lives to defend it, stop apologizing for it.

Matthew (me) How is abortion culturally necessary, good for humanity, and essential? What women gave their lives for the cause of abortion? How are the ones trying to stop the mass murdering infant slaughterhouses ' anti - woman Nazis'? Please enlighten me how any of that makes sense

James You see when a woman would be better off not having a baby, forcing her to have one can lead to a chain reaction of bad things that last lifetimes and effect many people. And the people who are against the right of woman to make such a profound choice abuot his are anti-woman Nazi's because they want to risk womans health and freedom (anti-woman part) because of their personal, magic man in the sky beliefs (just like the Nazis). Especially when said Nazi's think murder is an appropriate response to people not falling in line with their absurd beliefs.

Matthew Ok what is 'better off without a baby'? It’s not about the woman's health or at least rarely is, it’s about protecting a child from execution based on the mother’s irresponsibility. Saying that people only value life because of their faith is a fallacious argument that is like me saying you are evil and want to slaughter babies because you are an atheist. Unfair characterization and intellectually dishonest. And 'murder is an appropriate response to people not falling in line with their beliefs' is the ethos of abortionists. Republicans and the right as a whole are not killing anyone and the comparison is ignorant and laughable. Oh and what Hitler did had nothing to do with religious beliefs, It was Darwinian methodology driven by nihilism that was adopted. We can have a long argument about that but I'll refrain being I’m on my phone

James I use the religious association because only religious people are arrogant enough to presume they understand when life begins and whether its morally wrong or not to end a pregnancy at any particular time. Religious people are also the only ones in this case to think their moral beliefs supercede the rights of woman to control their lives and bodies. Ill cede the Nazis point but the fascist mindset of christians when they talk about this stuff is plain as day. And im agnostic.

Matthew Ok we can agree to disagree on life at conception. If when I say that something with a heartbeat and legs that can kick in response to an external stimulus especially that can live outside the Womb is alive, to call that just religious or arrogant is nonscence. Besides if someone truly believes with conviction that infants are being exterminated, does that really make them a bad person if they want to stop it? While you obviously disagree can you not at least comprehend if not empathize with their view. When an abortion is performed it is essential they remove all the flesh of the child because if not it will kill the mother, how then is it her body? It is not her body, it is a life growing inside her. This has nothing to do with fascism and control, only compassion for the life being executed. If women want a choice, try choosing to shut your legs

Teresa NO. Stop that ******* right there. That kind of rhetoric has gone in for far too long. Don't you dare ever tell a woman that she needs to "close her legs".

First of all, you're completely overlooking cases of rape, incest, faulty birth control, etc etc and just blaming the woman for having sex in the first pkace as though it is a shameful thing to do, which it isn't. If a woman wants to have sex, she should have it without this kind of puritanical horse ****

Matthew Ok rape and incest is not what's being addressed here because statistically it is negligible at best. For the record such cases are where I would seriously reconsider my stance. Women have the right to sleep with an entire football team if they so desire. Do I think that is shameful? Yes. Would I pass judgment or actively shame her? NO! But to say she has no choice that led to conception is irresponsible and downright ludicrous. Just as a man chooses to sire a child. It is morally reprehensible to refuse to partake in raising (monetarily or otherwise) under the false claim of a man's right to choose. None of this is any regurgitated rhetoric or puritanical bull ****. Rather the horror I feel knowing these baby slaughterhouses exist. I admire your passion and your focus seems to be on a woman's health not some evil baby killing plan. I feel that murdering an infant is never ok. And I am ashamed to live in a society where it not only is ok but celebrated and joked about. I am mortified by the thought of the moral depravity the future will bring when we start making up morals as we go along.
And for the record, if a woman expressed to me her grave fears of getting pregnant, I would not hesitate to tell her the only way with one hundred percent certainty to avoid pregnancy is to keep her knees kissing

Teresa Abortion clinics are not "baby slaughterhouses". Infants are not being murdered.
Why aren't people protestung at fertility clinics? They destroy millions of fertilized embryos every day.
It's no one's ******* business how many people a woman sleeps with and it isn't shameful. This isn't about protecting children. This is about controlling women. Putting all of the blame on the woman and suggesting that she needs to "keep her knees together" is a stupid ******* thing to say
.
Kelly have such a major lady crush on you right now, Teresa

Danny Abstinence only education is regurgitated puritanical ********. And telling a woman to keep her knees closed is about as misogynistic as it gets. I would love to hear about your beautiful version of the future where women are physically forced to carry every fertilized egg to birth without some naive belief that people will stop having sex. Actually, I'll pass

Matthew Wow. I’m not the enemy just sharing opinion. I'm not just going around telling women to keep their legs shut, that's just false. I'm saying men AND women should be more responsible with their genitals before conception. That’s your choice. And yes abstinence is the only way to guarantee no pregnancy. Imo extramarital sex is immoral. You can believe whatever you want and that's fine. It's a hypocritical double standard to tell me or any religious person they are arrogant for daring to impose their beliefs and then tell me there's nothing wrong with promiscuity saying i should live and preach your rhetoric (which they applaud you for). You’re all cherry picking my comments and then getting all fired up. If someone wants an abortion because it’s out of wedlock then if you were married before sex then there would be no problem. That’s a good point about fertility clinics but i never said anything about embryos. I’m talking beating heart, kicking in the womb, can live outside the womb. I'm not a misogynist, no one who knows me has ever said so. Women can do whatever they want except when it comes to killing infants. You can re label it whatever you want to remove guilt but that’s what it is 9 times out of 10; executing innocent children. The truth will always be if you don’t want to risk getting pregnant, boys keep your pants on and girls keep your legs closed. Or have surgery to remove reproductive glands. That’s a fact of nature not my opinion.

Teresa This might be a shock to you, but plenty of married people have abortions. And some people who seek abortions never plan to marry. And some people who raise families never plan to marry. And preaching abstinence only is what leads to the highest rates of abortions and STDs. Also, a great deal of people who wait till marriage end up miserably divorcing a few years later, either because they only got married so they could fibally have sex, or because they are so uneducated about sexual relations that they are horribly mismatched, or because they've been taught for so long to think of sex as something guilty and shameful that they don't know how to enjoy it now that they're wedded.

Virginity should not be looked at like some kind of priceless commodity. It's perverse.


Matthew If by perverse you mean contrary to popular belief then unfortunately yes it is perverse. Wrong, illogical, immoral? I am stunned you feel that way. To say I have earn the right of marriage by throwing my meat around like a sale at a butcher shop would be funny if you went being so obtuse. I really don’t care about married unmarried abortion but having all children grow up with a married mother and father would solve a whole host of problems. I can give you my honest opinion but you’re not ready to hear it and this thread would light up with hate towards me. We have left any kind of imperial fact a long time ago and are now in your opinion (albeit an intense and well expressed one. Minus the hate perhaps). It’s a non sequitur to say that encouraging self-control is the primary cause of abortion and STD, and frankly ridiculous. The number one cause is LACK of self-control and sex. I'm sure you can show me a variety of statistics. You have to factor in the time, cultural influences, location and many more to receive an estimate even close to accurate. This is sad though. According to you (and apparently the majority) if I taught my daughter the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD is abstinence, that virginity and purity should be revered not ridiculed, and that her and her future husbands best gift to each other is their chastity, and to discover sex together is truly beautiful and how it was intended to be you would call me a misogynist and I'm trying to control her right?

Danny I think, the crux of your point lies in this person being your daughter (whose struggles I can only imagine). But when you tell every other woman that their only option is to never have sex or give birth every time they are pregnant, yes, you are being controlling and misogynistic.

Matthew Danny Wow so if i have kids they would suffer unimaginably? Because I disagree with you? That’s a really and offensive thing to say. I will give you benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it quite like it read and I'll take no offense. I just posted originally questioning logic and now everyone jumped on the hate matt-wagon. I know we disagree but I'll state my point as clearly as possible. (I believe): 1. A baby in the womb that at very least has a heartbeat, responds to an external stimulus and is viable outside the womb is a living child. 2. Because this is a separate living being, it is not part of the woman's body, she is a host or incubator for this life. 3. I support women 100% most of the time and have no desire to control them but No one should be able to legally exterminate a child due to convenience.
4. The appropriate way to initiate change is to appeal to legislation not shame an individual.
If you cannot understand that then i don't know what to tell you. Say whatever nasty things you want I just oppose the genocide of infants.

Teresa I can show you a variety of statistics. Here.

*Abstinence-Only Sex education does nothing to keep teenagers from having sex. Sex is a normal part of human nature and it's going to happen. When you refuse to educated people in how to have it responsibly, you end up with the highest rates of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and STD's. It is not a non-sequitur, it's a ************ fact.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/.../40 ... ruth-about...
http://thinkprogress.org/.../abstinence ... es-charts/
http://thinkprogress.org/.../teen-pregn ... education/
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Abstinence-only_sex...
http://rhrealitycheck.org/.../dissectin ... ageous.../
http://www.motherjones.com/.../abstinen ... ers-public...
http://www.salon.com/.../11/20/my_absti ... education/
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/1/gpr120106.html
https://www.aclu.org/what-research-shows-government...

Teresa If you're concerned about the virginity of your daughter, you can always have a purity ball, where she pledges her virginity to her father until she is married to her future husband, furthering the disgusting tradition of putting value on a woman's virginity as a commodity. Of course, that won't change anything and she'll probably end up having sex before marriage, only because she's not properly educated about sex, it will be in the back of someone's truck without a condom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_ball#Criticism

The only reason virginity was considered special in the first place is because women were ******* sold and their virginity made them valuable. Do you care about if you had a son who had sex before marriage? Of course not. Because who cares? But a young woman who gives up her virginity is no longer pure, right? She's dirty, sullied, wasted, used, a chewed up piece of gum? Why? Because ******* ******* ********. Stop telling women they're only valuable if they meet an arcane purity standard. You wanna teach your daughter she's valuable? Teach her to value her mind, to take care of herself, to be confident, to be strong. Teach her to be respectful of her body and to make smart choices, and instead of ending up another statistic of bullshit patriarchal standards, she might actually end up in a fulfilling relationship and have kids when she's ready for them.
Purity ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“A purity ball is an American formal dance event attended by fathers and their daughters which promotes virginity until marriage for teenage girls. Typically, daughters who attend a purity ball make a virginity pledge to remain sexually abstinent until marriage. Fathers who attend a purity ball make…�

Danny holy slow clapping **** yes

Matthew: Teresa Ah you’re a feminist. I should have known better.
Ok where to start… (I might address your corner man as well, being that he has run out of ‘clever’ things to say)
Ok let’s start with your ‘statistics’.
I’m not a formally trained scientist (I assume neither are you) but here is a piece of advice:
Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. To simply say ‘they teach abstinence only, and we have more babies, STD’s, and abortions so therefore abstinence = babies, STD’s, and baby killing’ Can you see the flaw in that logic? As I said before, there are MANY other variables to consider; Time (year), Culture, Geopolitical climate, location, population density, hell even what is on TV and how many kids watch it. Real science does not ignore all variables that might skew their favored result. Fortunately, most of those pages have the intellectual honesty (quite surprising via the source material) to say ‘may cause’ or ‘relates to’.
All of these studies only go as far back as 2007 and the most recent is 2010, again not an accurate study of the effects of cultural change over time, and it doesn’t even cover one generation. One reports that ‘The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States’ (sounds very official) says that ‘kids in the Magnolia State [Mississippi] are having sex earlier and more frequently than the national average. (Must be those Christians!) Even 80% of evangelical Christians report having sex at least once before marriage!!!! Eureka! It’s the abstinence training! Science! Then they still emphasize waiting for marriage as the best approach to teen sexuality, but also include some more information about contraceptive methods. (Those contradictory idiots, don’t they know self-control is the number one cause of abortion?!?!?) Another states that abstinence-only strategies COULD deter contraceptive use among teenagers, thus increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy (assuming that they are not in fact abstinent. LOGIC!) Two state absolutely no facts, only ridicule a pro-life abstinence teachers methods. Then we have an anecdotal tale of a barely legal girl’s hormonally driven awkward experience in the basement at friend’s coed sleepover with the birthday girl’s Jewish cousin. A lovely read, thank you for that. After wading through all that poorly written nonsense, I found hardly any viable comprehensive statistics or legitimate studies only contrived internet articles. (Shocker!) I did find a lot of ‘according to a [uncited] government report�, “a major national study [uncited]�, and don’t forget the “four small study groups [uncited]�! So really all you did was proved my point that I was able to convey in two seconds and one sentence, on my phone no less.
Moving along. Purity ball? Really? I make the points of killing babies is wrong, and no one forces you to have sex in the first place and you show me a wiki on purity balls? Here’s the thing that rubs me the wrong way though; who the hell do you think you are to dictate to me what I believe or think? Especially without never having a decent conversation with me? Why do you assume that I would only encourage or value my daughters and not my son’s virginity? Or when did I say anything about a dirty, sullied, wasted, used, chewed piece of gum? True purity doesn’t come from sex or lack thereof, it comes from the blood of Christ; let’s get my feelings on purity straight, right now. Why do you think I would teach my daughter self-control in lieu of a valuable mind, self-preservation, independence, confidence and strength? Why do you assume I wouldn’t teach her about sex and anatomy, pregnancy and stds? Respect, self-control, and integrity are learned at HOME, I don’t need some civil slave to do that for me.
TL:DR What’s happening here is that being you ran out of logic, you are proceeding to launch an ad hominem attack on me personally instead of my Logic. If you disagree with me that’s fine. If you want to intellectually debate, that’s fine too. If you want to ridicule and make me look stupid for your peanut gallery, do yourself a favor; Do some real research and don’t waste my time with this contrived nonsense.

Ryan l This is about cultural differences. I don't have an opinion on abortion because I've never been in that situation. What I support is a persons right to choose. If you and a wife/baby mama don't want to have an abortion, then you don't have to. But saying that no one can have abortions because you find it wrong is unacceptable. I've known women that have had to make that choice, and they don't go into it lightly.

To answer your question about who has died, look up news stories of the multiple attacks and bombings on planned parenthood attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abor ... ce#Murders
These people aren't at these clinics because they love killing babies, they are there to support a woman's right to decide for herself.


Matthew Their not saying they find it wrong there saying murdering babies IS wrong. With absolute truth, opposing viewpoints cannot both be correct. There are no opinions on truth. Truth is simply truth. Period. Even liberals have truths they hold as self-evident. I guarantee there are things you are directly opposed to. Perhaps that you think Christians are arrogant, ignorant, and irrational. Those people who died hardly altruistically went off to willingly die for the cause. Workplace violence at the hands of a psychopath is what that was. Besides, how about more women make their choices BEFORE conception and completely avoid the massacre of an innocent child that doesn't fit into their plan.

Michael because it isn’t an innocent child, it is an accumulation of cells at that point. so in this case it is a medical procedure that the patient should be entitled to have performed. if the organism cannot survive on its own, it is not a massacre.

Matthew They do it after 25 weeks in some cases, when it can survive. I'm sorry but from what Ive seen of it has a heartbeat and can kick its legs and respond to external stimulus. ..It’s a baby. In your expert opinion, when does life start? Why do I get fined 100k if I destroy the egg of bald eagle that is only a single cell? If they found a single celled organism on mars, would you declare life on mars?
Teresa Eagles are endangered. People are over-populated. If we could afford to feed every human being in the world, we wouldn't need abortion. If we didn't have millions of children waiting in foster care to be adopted, then maybe "adoption is an option" wouldn't be a completely meaningless phrase and abortion wouldn't be necessary. But even if we could feed every child and didn't have millions lined up for adoption and a woman got pregnant and decided she wanted an abortion, she could do that.

Matthew ok I'm like fighting on all fronts here. I'm saying population in my opinion is not an excuse for extermination. If the government decides to start liquefying your neighborhood I think you would be inclined to agree. I believe that infants are being executed and in my opinion there is no way to justify that. We do not have that authority. China is overpopulated, and they are snatching women out of there homes and violently cutting out there children. They execute living children. That is not a solution. I take the stance that it is better for half of our population to starve trying to stay alive than to start killing children and the weak as we see fit. Maybe i'm picking the lesser of two evils but so be it.

Teresa Yeah, I would be inclined to agree, if that were happening which it isn't. Genocide of living human beings is atrocious. Infanticide is atrocious. Abortion is not the same thing. We disagree greatly on when life begins, and most who think that it begins at conception or at some point before birth have chosen this either for religious reasons or purely arbitrarily.

Marisa Consider for a moment that abortion was illegal, based your absolutely incorrect assumption that all women who get abortions just want to "murder a child that doesn't fit her plan". People would still find a way to do it. Murder is also illegal. People still murder. I don't see you on your soap box protesting the murder of actual living human beings in the world, only fetuses in the womb. You don't sound selfless crying genocide, you sound self-righteous. There are lots of things I don't agree with in this world, some are perfectly legal. I don't understand why people crusade for the rights of unborn fetuses while simultaneously trying to strip away the rights of grown women. You know you're doing that, right? You are stating not only does a 19.6-week old fetus (the latest PP will do abortion btw, not 25 weeks) have rights, but those rights are MORE IMPORTANT than mine? There are endless real problems in the real world we live in, which for the most part we are all happy to ignore. Why create a problem because a right that has already been fought for and established doesn't fit into your ideological dream world? There should not even be a debate on this subject anymore. Laws are not religions to follow. If you don't agree with the law but still want to live in America, tough shit. The bottom line here, is that some crazy ******* shot up Planned Parenthood, again. People died. And that's not ok, regardless of what you think about them performing legal abortions.

Matthew Ok one more and I’m done. This is pointless. I made a comment questioning the logic of s post and out cone the fangs and claws and emotional personal attacks.
1. I am not protesting, on a soapbox, unsympathetic to murders of all kinds, or trying to be 'righteous' or selfless. I’m not 'crying genocide' simply staying that the mass murder of infants is genocide. It is. I am not ok with that and will not bow down to silly hateful attacks. If you want to fight over semantics call Webster.
2. I never said women just want to murder a child that doesn't fit her plan I said they ARE just murdering a child who doesn't fit their plan. People deceive themselves in a manner of ways to justify the horrible reality of what they are doing.
3. You’re saying because laws are not 100% effective they are pointless? What about murder, rape and pedophilia laws? Should we throw those out as well?
4. I never said anything about embryos or conception. No one here has offered any opinion as when life starts. I'm saying if the baby has a heartbeat, can kick and respond to external stimulus, especially if it can live outside the womb it is obviously an infant, and to kill it is murder of the worst kind. At what percentage of chance of survival do you think it's ok to dash its brains out and box it up for retail?
4. When a baby is executed, they must remove all scraps of its carcass or it will kill the mother as it’s a FOREIGN body. It is not her body. It is a life inside her. She is a host or an incubator. Your so called rights do not allow you to execute children and infringe on is right to live.
5. it’s got nothing to do with religion, residence, or idyllic dream world, it’s about the morality of killing babies. I don’t care if the debate doesn't suit your worldview, to retain any morality we have left this must stop.
6. I never condoned or partook in any violent actions against PP. However, those who died were victims not heroes.
7. This is pointless, the problem is the foundation is off. Anything built on your pseudo-intellectual quasi-moral relativism that can be changed by the latest online article or group chant will not stand, or let alone produce anything of substantial moral value. Unless the foundation is based on concrete morality it will all disintegrate into depravity.

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

If you have partaken in this slaughter you are guilty. But we all are. There is still forgiveness and salvation available for you to be found in Christ.

[rikuoamero]

Hi, I'm an atheist skeptic, former Christian. I'm a man, who is personally opposed to abortion (as in, if my female significant other wanted one, I would try to talk her out of it) but I would vote to make it legal, because my moral views are not necessarily what is best for society.
Now, I might read through the full entirety of your post within a few days, but I just want to comment on the last part, the one where you end with 7 points. I know, the title is you're looking for Christian guidance but hey, it shouldn't hurt to hear a critique from the other side, can it?

1. I am not protesting, on a soapbox, unsympathetic to murders of all kinds, or trying to be 'righteous' or selfless. I’m not 'crying genocide' simply staying that the mass murder of infants is genocide. It is. I am not ok with that and will not bow down to silly hateful attacks. If you want to fight over semantics call Webster.

Since I haven't as of yet read the full comment, I have no comment on this myself, although I personally wouldn't call an unborn baby an 'infant'. I try to be precise in my terminology.

I never said women just want to murder a child that doesn't fit her plan I said they ARE just murdering a child who doesn't fit their plan. People deceive themselves in a manner of ways to justify the horrible reality of what they are doing.

We'll have to agree to disagree. There are cases of abortion where the health of the mother is at strong risk, if not her life, if she continues with the pregnancy. This may have been addressed in your OP.

You’re saying because laws are not 100% effective they are pointless? What about murder, rape and pedophilia laws? Should we throw those out as well?

Like 1, I'd need the full context of your response which is in the full comment, so no comment from myself

4. I never said anything about embryos or conception. No one here has offered any opinion as when life starts. I'm saying if the baby has a heartbeat, can kick and respond to external stimulus, especially if it can live outside the womb it is obviously an infant, and to kill it is murder of the worst kind. At what percentage of chance of survival do you think it's ok to dash its brains out and box it up for retail?

This comment is primarily why I wanted to respond. This is highly emotive language, and a gross exaggeration. Is this really what you think happens? They pick up a baby and bash its brains out against a wall? No, it would help your argument if you would be more precise, instead of using what is basically propaganda. Tell us exactly how an abortion is carried out, instead of trying to paint it as being overtly violent.

4. When a baby is executed, they must remove all scraps of its carcass or it will kill the mother as it’s a FOREIGN body. It is not her body. It is a life inside her. She is a host or an incubator. Your so called rights do not allow you to execute children and infringe on is right to live.

This is where you and I disagree (also, kill? This is the first I've heard of aborted babies posing a threat to the mother's life) While I would argue against abortion myself and want to see a child of mine be born, the ultimate decision lies with the mother. It IS her body. To say she has no right to terminate an unborn child because she is a host, is to invite this being likened to saying no-one has a right to terminate a disease that is using a human body as its host. I know you're probably shaking your head, thinking "why did he equate a baby with a disease" but I'm not. I'm saying that the reason given for why a person wants to get rid of a disease are the same as you have just given for why they would want to rid themselves of a child. If it's moral and ok in your book for someone to treat a disease as a foreign body and to try to get rid of it as its a threat to their life, then so too must it be moral to and ok in your book for someone to treat a child as a foreign body and try to get rid of it as its a threat to their life.

5. it’s got nothing to do with religion, residence, or idyllic dream world, it’s about the morality of killing babies. I don’t care if the debate doesn't suit your worldview, to retain any morality we have left this must stop.

The title of this thread is "Christian Guidance on a past "debate" ". Religion is very much involved here. Especially with your last two paragraphs. This point of yours comes as a lie to me in fact.

6. I never condoned or partook in any violent actions against PP. However, those who died were victims not heroes.

Agreed

7. This is pointless, the problem is the foundation is off. Anything built on your pseudo-intellectual quasi-moral relativism that can be changed by the latest online article or group chant will not stand, or let alone produce anything of substantial moral value. Unless the foundation is based on concrete morality it will all disintegrate into depravity.

My instinct here is to disagree. My first thought on this (and for now my only thought, I'll have to ponder this point a bit before I start debating it for real) is that from what I can see you have only two states, concrete morality and depravity. If a person is one, they are not the other. This to me reads like a false dichotomy.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

my moral views are not necessarily what is best for society.

Are the moral views of those who approve of abortion the ones that are best for society? Someone's moral views will prevail and dominate society. If you don't support the ones you believe in you are by your inaction supporting those you disapprove of.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by puddleglum]

If I was so inclined, I would attempt to convince others not to go through with abortion, but I would not vote to make it illegal. It is highly contentious, and I recognise that making it illegal causes harms. I live in Ireland, where it is currently illegal. Our doctors can't even advise on it. Despite this, many women go out of the country to seek abortions elsewhere and this doesn't always translate into them getting the best care.

What is accomplished by making abortion illegal? This question isn't a question about morality, but what happens when abortion is made illegal?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

my moral views are not necessarily what is best for society.

Are the moral views of those who approve of abortion the ones that are best for society? Someone's moral views will prevail and dominate society. If you don't support the ones you believe in you are by your inaction supporting those you disapprove of.

I totally disagree with your line of thinking here.

Laws of the land do not need to reflect the "morality" of the society.

It's not the purpose of laws to try to force morality onto people.

In fact, that kind of thinking should be kept as far away from legislation as possible.

When it comes to abortions I too would prefer not to be personally involved with the need to have one (or support a woman having one to be more precise). However, there certainly are cases where I would loan my support for specific abortions.

I personally wouldn't behave in a manner in which I would impregnate a woman that I would not be willing to take full responsibility for the child. But clearly that's not the behavior that we see in the general society.

The fact of the matter is that women tend to get pregnant when they have no intention of getting pregnant. At that point "morality" is already "water over the dam". Trying to then force the person to be moral at that point by demanding that they carry out the pregnancy to term is not only unrealistic, but it's even an act of cruelty.

These "pro-lifers" claim to care about the life of an unborn fetus but they couldn't couldn't care less about the life of the woman who is pregnant. They also don't care much about the quality of the life of the unborn fetus because forcing that fetus to become a child is only going to result in having that child born into a world where it's basically not even wanted.

These "pro-lifers" don't seem to give a hoot about quality of life at all. All they want to do is demand that every fertilized egg must become a full-blown human no matter what quality of life it might be in for.

And it's really ridiculous, because if I'm in the mood to have sex and my wife says, "not tonight I have a headache", then the child that would have potentially been conceived on that night was basically murdered before it even had chance.

This idea that a line can be drawn at conception is nonsense in any case.

[mstringer06]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Well I do understand your points, and there is some wisdom buried in there. However, I do not agree with most of it lol.

1. I did address high-risk pregnancies
2. to puncture a (live) babies skull with a needle for the purpose of extracting its brain is not hyperbole to say "At what percentage of chance of survival do you think it's ok to dash its brains out and box it up for retail?". It is supposed to be dramatic, this needs to be seen for what it is.
3. To compare a disease which its only purpose is to damage the host with a living breathing human is ridiculous.
4. You don't have to be religious to have morality
5. You either have concrete moral structure, or you have moral relativism. Relativism by its nature is subject to change. Whats wrong today is ok tomorrow. If you steal once it is a lot easier the next time. This is not a slippery slope argument rather a consolidation of like principles.

[mstringer06]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]

my moral views are not necessarily what is best for society.

Are the moral views of those who approve of abortion the ones that are best for society? Someone's moral views will prevail and dominate society. If you don't support the ones you believe in you are by your inaction supporting those you disapprove of.

I totally disagree with your line of thinking here.

Laws of the land do not need to reflect the "morality" of the society.

It's not the purpose of laws to try to force morality onto people.

In fact, that kind of thinking should be kept as far away from legislation as possible.

When it comes to abortions I too would prefer not to be personally involved with the need to have one (or support a woman having one to be more precise). However, there certainly are cases where I would loan my support for specific abortions.

I personally wouldn't behave in a manner in which I would impregnate a woman that I would not be willing to take full responsibility for the child. But clearly that's not the behavior that we see in the general society.

The fact of the matter is that women tend to get pregnant when they have no intention of getting pregnant. At that point "morality" is already "water over the dam". Trying to then force the person to be moral at that point by demanding that they carry out the pregnancy to term is not only unrealistic, but it's even an act of cruelty.

These "pro-lifers" claim to care about the life of an unborn fetus but they couldn't couldn't care less about the life of the woman who is pregnant. They also don't care much about the quality of the life of the unborn fetus because forcing that fetus to become a child is only going to result in having that child born into a world where it's basically not even wanted.

These "pro-lifers" don't seem to give a hoot about quality of life at all. All they want to do is demand that every fertilized egg must become a full-blown human no matter what quality of life it might be in for.

And it's really ridiculous, because if I'm in the mood to have sex and my wife says, "not tonight I have a headache", then the child that would have potentially been conceived on that night was basically murdered before it even had chance.

This idea that a line can be drawn at conception is nonsense in any case.

Firstly, the laws of the land absolutely reflect the morality of the people. The same could be said about what goes on TV and Movies. When abortion was made legal it not only gave exposure but permission to the people to do it. The slaughtering of 50 million babies ensued. The government has affirmed people that it is a moral option. As for the rest of it, this issue is not about standard of living or even the mothers rights. It's about the murder of children. To kill a child in the womb is more merciful than giving it a chance to live? We live in the largest welfare state on the planet, with access to some of the best universities on the planet. Every kid has their own iPhone and tablet for the most part. You want to talk about poverty? Most Americans cannot conceive of real poverty. Go to eastern Europe or the slums in south afrika. THATS poverty.

The last part about not having sex equating to murder is a straw man and complete nonsense. Not one pro killing unborn children person has ever offered me an explanation when life starts, just mock those who try to.

[Clownboat]

This is my first post and I'm not sure if this is how its supposed to work but I'll give it a go. I usually stay away from these conversations unless I'm face to face in a mutually comfortable environment. However, the other day someone posted something on facebook that bothered me I couldn't help myself. As soon as I posted I had several people team up against me and became volatile. I know I was probably wrong in some things, but I would like to know I'm not alone in this. It has profanity but I removed it but had to leave something in its place to keep sentence structure. It's kind of long so Ill try to post 1/3 of it.

OP: I don’t care if Planned Parenthood provides nothing BUT abortion services. I don’t care if it’s a million-story abortion super park with abortion waterslides an abortion electrical parade. Abortion is legal. ABORTION IS LEGAL. If I read one more “defense� of Planned Parenthood that says “it’s not JUST abortions!� or “only 5% of what they do is abortion!. And abortions aren’t federally funded!� I’m going to abort myself. Abortion is legal, culturally necessary, and good for humanity. It has been and will be practiced for millennia. It is essential. It is a fact. By minimizing, denying or apologizing for this fact, you are allowing these venal anti-woman Nazis to frame this debate and continue to chip away at this essential right. Abortion is not tragic. It is not painful. It is a fact. It is a right. Demand it, fight for it, and for the sake of the women who have given their lives to defend it, stop apologizing for it.

Matthew (me) How is abortion culturally necessary, good for humanity, and essential? What women gave their lives for the cause of abortion? How are the ones trying to stop the mass murdering infant slaughterhouses ' anti - woman Nazis'? Please enlighten me how any of that makes sense

James You see when a woman would be better off not having a baby, forcing her to have one can lead to a chain reaction of bad things that last lifetimes and effect many people. And the people who are against the right of woman to make such a profound choice abuot his are anti-woman Nazi's because they want to risk womans health and freedom (anti-woman part) because of their personal, magic man in the sky beliefs (just like the Nazis). Especially when said Nazi's think murder is an appropriate response to people not falling in line with their absurd beliefs.

Matthew Ok what is 'better off without a baby'? It’s not about the woman's health or at least rarely is, it’s about protecting a child from execution based on the mother’s irresponsibility. Saying that people only value life because of their faith is a fallacious argument that is like me saying you are evil and want to slaughter babies because you are an atheist. Unfair characterization and intellectually dishonest. And 'murder is an appropriate response to people not falling in line with their beliefs' is the ethos of abortionists. Republicans and the right as a whole are not killing anyone and the comparison is ignorant and laughable. Oh and what Hitler did had nothing to do with religious beliefs, It was Darwinian methodology driven by nihilism that was adopted. We can have a long argument about that but I'll refrain being I’m on my phone

James I use the religious association because only religious people are arrogant enough to presume they understand when life begins and whether its morally wrong or not to end a pregnancy at any particular time. Religious people are also the only ones in this case to think their moral beliefs supercede the rights of woman to control their lives and bodies. Ill cede the Nazis point but the fascist mindset of christians when they talk about this stuff is plain as day. And im agnostic.

Matthew Ok we can agree to disagree on life at conception. If when I say that something with a heartbeat and legs that can kick in response to an external stimulus especially that can live outside the Womb is alive, to call that just religious or arrogant is nonscence. Besides if someone truly believes with conviction that infants are being exterminated, does that really make them a bad person if they want to stop it? While you obviously disagree can you not at least comprehend if not empathize with their view. When an abortion is performed it is essential they remove all the flesh of the child because if not it will kill the mother, how then is it her body? It is not her body, it is a life growing inside her. This has nothing to do with fascism and control, only compassion for the life being executed. If women want a choice, try choosing to shut your legs

Teresa NO. Stop that ******* right there. That kind of rhetoric has gone in for far too long. Don't you dare ever tell a woman that she needs to "close her legs".

First of all, you're completely overlooking cases of rape, incest, faulty birth control, etc etc and just blaming the woman for having sex in the first pkace as though it is a shameful thing to do, which it isn't. If a woman wants to have sex, she should have it without this kind of puritanical horse ****

Matthew Ok rape and incest is not what's being addressed here because statistically it is negligible at best. For the record such cases are where I would seriously reconsider my stance. Women have the right to sleep with an entire football team if they so desire. Do I think that is shameful? Yes. Would I pass judgment or actively shame her? NO! But to say she has no choice that led to conception is irresponsible and downright ludicrous. Just as a man chooses to sire a child. It is morally reprehensible to refuse to partake in raising (monetarily or otherwise) under the false claim of a man's right to choose. None of this is any regurgitated rhetoric or puritanical bull ****. Rather the horror I feel knowing these baby slaughterhouses exist. I admire your passion and your focus seems to be on a woman's health not some evil baby killing plan. I feel that murdering an infant is never ok. And I am ashamed to live in a society where it not only is ok but celebrated and joked about. I am mortified by the thought of the moral depravity the future will bring when we start making up morals as we go along.
And for the record, if a woman expressed to me her grave fears of getting pregnant, I would not hesitate to tell her the only way with one hundred percent certainty to avoid pregnancy is to keep her knees kissing

Teresa Abortion clinics are not "baby slaughterhouses". Infants are not being murdered.
Why aren't people protestung at fertility clinics? They destroy millions of fertilized embryos every day.
It's no one's ******* business how many people a woman sleeps with and it isn't shameful. This isn't about protecting children. This is about controlling women. Putting all of the blame on the woman and suggesting that she needs to "keep her knees together" is a stupid ******* thing to say
.
Kelly have such a major lady crush on you right now, Teresa

Danny Abstinence only education is regurgitated puritanical ********. And telling a woman to keep her knees closed is about as misogynistic as it gets. I would love to hear about your beautiful version of the future where women are physically forced to carry every fertilized egg to birth without some naive belief that people will stop having sex. Actually, I'll pass

Matthew Wow. I’m not the enemy just sharing opinion. I'm not just going around telling women to keep their legs shut, that's just false. I'm saying men AND women should be more responsible with their genitals before conception. That’s your choice. And yes abstinence is the only way to guarantee no pregnancy. Imo extramarital sex is immoral. You can believe whatever you want and that's fine. It's a hypocritical double standard to tell me or any religious person they are arrogant for daring to impose their beliefs and then tell me there's nothing wrong with promiscuity saying i should live and preach your rhetoric (which they applaud you for). You’re all cherry picking my comments and then getting all fired up. If someone wants an abortion because it’s out of wedlock then if you were married before sex then there would be no problem. That’s a good point about fertility clinics but i never said anything about embryos. I’m talking beating heart, kicking in the womb, can live outside the womb. I'm not a misogynist, no one who knows me has ever said so. Women can do whatever they want except when it comes to killing infants. You can re label it whatever you want to remove guilt but that’s what it is 9 times out of 10; executing innocent children. The truth will always be if you don’t want to risk getting pregnant, boys keep your pants on and girls keep your legs closed. Or have surgery to remove reproductive glands. That’s a fact of nature not my opinion.

Teresa This might be a shock to you, but plenty of married people have abortions. And some people who seek abortions never plan to marry. And some people who raise families never plan to marry. And preaching abstinence only is what leads to the highest rates of abortions and STDs. Also, a great deal of people who wait till marriage end up miserably divorcing a few years later, either because they only got married so they could fibally have sex, or because they are so uneducated about sexual relations that they are horribly mismatched, or because they've been taught for so long to think of sex as something guilty and shameful that they don't know how to enjoy it now that they're wedded.

Virginity should not be looked at like some kind of priceless commodity. It's perverse.


Matthew If by perverse you mean contrary to popular belief then unfortunately yes it is perverse. Wrong, illogical, immoral? I am stunned you feel that way. To say I have earn the right of marriage by throwing my meat around like a sale at a butcher shop would be funny if you went being so obtuse. I really don’t care about married unmarried abortion but having all children grow up with a married mother and father would solve a whole host of problems. I can give you my honest opinion but you’re not ready to hear it and this thread would light up with hate towards me. We have left any kind of imperial fact a long time ago and are now in your opinion (albeit an intense and well expressed one. Minus the hate perhaps). It’s a non sequitur to say that encouraging self-control is the primary cause of abortion and STD, and frankly ridiculous. The number one cause is LACK of self-control and sex. I'm sure you can show me a variety of statistics. You have to factor in the time, cultural influences, location and many more to receive an estimate even close to accurate. This is sad though. According to you (and apparently the majority) if I taught my daughter the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD is abstinence, that virginity and purity should be revered not ridiculed, and that her and her future husbands best gift to each other is their chastity, and to discover sex together is truly beautiful and how it was intended to be you would call me a misogynist and I'm trying to control her right?

Danny I think, the crux of your point lies in this person being your daughter (whose struggles I can only imagine). But when you tell every other woman that their only option is to never have sex or give birth every time they are pregnant, yes, you are being controlling and misogynistic.

Matthew Danny Wow so if i have kids they would suffer unimaginably? Because I disagree with you? That’s a really and offensive thing to say. I will give you benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it quite like it read and I'll take no offense. I just posted originally questioning logic and now everyone jumped on the hate matt-wagon. I know we disagree but I'll state my point as clearly as possible. (I believe): 1. A baby in the womb that at very least has a heartbeat, responds to an external stimulus and is viable outside the womb is a living child. 2. Because this is a separate living being, it is not part of the woman's body, she is a host or incubator for this life. 3. I support women 100% most of the time and have no desire to control them but No one should be able to legally exterminate a child due to convenience.
4. The appropriate way to initiate change is to appeal to legislation not shame an individual.
If you cannot understand that then i don't know what to tell you. Say whatever nasty things you want I just oppose the genocide of infants.

Teresa I can show you a variety of statistics. Here.

*Abstinence-Only Sex education does nothing to keep teenagers from having sex. Sex is a normal part of human nature and it's going to happen. When you refuse to educated people in how to have it responsibly, you end up with the highest rates of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and STD's. It is not a non-sequitur, it's a ************ fact.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/.../40 ... ruth-about...
http://thinkprogress.org/.../abstinence ... es-charts/
http://thinkprogress.org/.../teen-pregn ... education/
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Abstinence-only_sex...
http://rhrealitycheck.org/.../dissectin ... ageous.../
http://www.motherjones.com/.../abstinen ... ers-public...
http://www.salon.com/.../11/20/my_absti ... education/
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/1/gpr120106.html
https://www.aclu.org/what-research-shows-government...

Teresa If you're concerned about the virginity of your daughter, you can always have a purity ball, where she pledges her virginity to her father until she is married to her future husband, furthering the disgusting tradition of putting value on a woman's virginity as a commodity. Of course, that won't change anything and she'll probably end up having sex before marriage, only because she's not properly educated about sex, it will be in the back of someone's truck without a condom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_ball#Criticism

The only reason virginity was considered special in the first place is because women were ******* sold and their virginity made them valuable. Do you care about if you had a son who had sex before marriage? Of course not. Because who cares? But a young woman who gives up her virginity is no longer pure, right? She's dirty, sullied, wasted, used, a chewed up piece of gum? Why? Because ******* ******* ********. Stop telling women they're only valuable if they meet an arcane purity standard. You wanna teach your daughter she's valuable? Teach her to value her mind, to take care of herself, to be confident, to be strong. Teach her to be respectful of her body and to make smart choices, and instead of ending up another statistic of bullshit patriarchal standards, she might actually end up in a fulfilling relationship and have kids when she's ready for them.
Purity ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“A purity ball is an American formal dance event attended by fathers and their daughters which promotes virginity until marriage for teenage girls. Typically, daughters who attend a purity ball make a virginity pledge to remain sexually abstinent until marriage. Fathers who attend a purity ball make…�

Danny holy slow clapping **** yes

Matthew: Teresa Ah you’re a feminist. I should have known better.
Ok where to start… (I might address your corner man as well, being that he has run out of ‘clever’ things to say)
Ok let’s start with your ‘statistics’.
I’m not a formally trained scientist (I assume neither are you) but here is a piece of advice:
Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. To simply say ‘they teach abstinence only, and we have more babies, STD’s, and abortions so therefore abstinence = babies, STD’s, and baby killing’ Can you see the flaw in that logic? As I said before, there are MANY other variables to consider; Time (year), Culture, Geopolitical climate, location, population density, hell even what is on TV and how many kids watch it. Real science does not ignore all variables that might skew their favored result. Fortunately, most of those pages have the intellectual honesty (quite surprising via the source material) to say ‘may cause’ or ‘relates to’.
All of these studies only go as far back as 2007 and the most recent is 2010, again not an accurate study of the effects of cultural change over time, and it doesn’t even cover one generation. One reports that ‘The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States’ (sounds very official) says that ‘kids in the Magnolia State [Mississippi] are having sex earlier and more frequently than the national average. (Must be those Christians!) Even 80% of evangelical Christians report having sex at least once before marriage!!!! Eureka! It’s the abstinence training! Science! Then they still emphasize waiting for marriage as the best approach to teen sexuality, but also include some more information about contraceptive methods. (Those contradictory idiots, don’t they know self-control is the number one cause of abortion?!?!?) Another states that abstinence-only strategies COULD deter contraceptive use among teenagers, thus increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy (assuming that they are not in fact abstinent. LOGIC!) Two state absolutely no facts, only ridicule a pro-life abstinence teachers methods. Then we have an anecdotal tale of a barely legal girl’s hormonally driven awkward experience in the basement at friend’s coed sleepover with the birthday girl’s Jewish cousin. A lovely read, thank you for that. After wading through all that poorly written nonsense, I found hardly any viable comprehensive statistics or legitimate studies only contrived internet articles. (Shocker!) I did find a lot of ‘according to a [uncited] government report�, “a major national study [uncited]�, and don’t forget the “four small study groups [uncited]�! So really all you did was proved my point that I was able to convey in two seconds and one sentence, on my phone no less.
Moving along. Purity ball? Really? I make the points of killing babies is wrong, and no one forces you to have sex in the first place and you show me a wiki on purity balls? Here’s the thing that rubs me the wrong way though; who the hell do you think you are to dictate to me what I believe or think? Especially without never having a decent conversation with me? Why do you assume that I would only encourage or value my daughters and not my son’s virginity? Or when did I say anything about a dirty, sullied, wasted, used, chewed piece of gum? True purity doesn’t come from sex or lack thereof, it comes from the blood of Christ; let’s get my feelings on purity straight, right now. Why do you think I would teach my daughter self-control in lieu of a valuable mind, self-preservation, independence, confidence and strength? Why do you assume I wouldn’t teach her about sex and anatomy, pregnancy and stds? Respect, self-control, and integrity are learned at HOME, I don’t need some civil slave to do that for me.
TL:DR What’s happening here is that being you ran out of logic, you are proceeding to launch an ad hominem attack on me personally instead of my Logic. If you disagree with me that’s fine. If you want to intellectually debate, that’s fine too. If you want to ridicule and make me look stupid for your peanut gallery, do yourself a favor; Do some real research and don’t waste my time with this contrived nonsense.

Ryan l This is about cultural differences. I don't have an opinion on abortion because I've never been in that situation. What I support is a persons right to choose. If you and a wife/baby mama don't want to have an abortion, then you don't have to. But saying that no one can have abortions because you find it wrong is unacceptable. I've known women that have had to make that choice, and they don't go into it lightly.

To answer your question about who has died, look up news stories of the multiple attacks and bombings on planned parenthood attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abor ... ce#Murders
These people aren't at these clinics because they love killing babies, they are there to support a woman's right to decide for herself.


Matthew Their not saying they find it wrong there saying murdering babies IS wrong. With absolute truth, opposing viewpoints cannot both be correct. There are no opinions on truth. Truth is simply truth. Period. Even liberals have truths they hold as self-evident. I guarantee there are things you are directly opposed to. Perhaps that you think Christians are arrogant, ignorant, and irrational. Those people who died hardly altruistically went off to willingly die for the cause. Workplace violence at the hands of a psychopath is what that was. Besides, how about more women make their choices BEFORE conception and completely avoid the massacre of an innocent child that doesn't fit into their plan.

Michael because it isn’t an innocent child, it is an accumulation of cells at that point. so in this case it is a medical procedure that the patient should be entitled to have performed. if the organism cannot survive on its own, it is not a massacre.

Matthew They do it after 25 weeks in some cases, when it can survive. I'm sorry but from what Ive seen of it has a heartbeat and can kick its legs and respond to external stimulus. ..It’s a baby. In your expert opinion, when does life start? Why do I get fined 100k if I destroy the egg of bald eagle that is only a single cell? If they found a single celled organism on mars, would you declare life on mars?
Teresa Eagles are endangered. People are over-populated. If we could afford to feed every human being in the world, we wouldn't need abortion. If we didn't have millions of children waiting in foster care to be adopted, then maybe "adoption is an option" wouldn't be a completely meaningless phrase and abortion wouldn't be necessary. But even if we could feed every child and didn't have millions lined up for adoption and a woman got pregnant and decided she wanted an abortion, she could do that.

Matthew ok I'm like fighting on all fronts here. I'm saying population in my opinion is not an excuse for extermination. If the government decides to start liquefying your neighborhood I think you would be inclined to agree. I believe that infants are being executed and in my opinion there is no way to justify that. We do not have that authority. China is overpopulated, and they are snatching women out of there homes and violently cutting out there children. They execute living children. That is not a solution. I take the stance that it is better for half of our population to starve trying to stay alive than to start killing children and the weak as we see fit. Maybe i'm picking the lesser of two evils but so be it.

Teresa Yeah, I would be inclined to agree, if that were happening which it isn't. Genocide of living human beings is atrocious. Infanticide is atrocious. Abortion is not the same thing. We disagree greatly on when life begins, and most who think that it begins at conception or at some point before birth have chosen this either for religious reasons or purely arbitrarily.

Marisa Consider for a moment that abortion was illegal, based your absolutely incorrect assumption that all women who get abortions just want to "murder a child that doesn't fit her plan". People would still find a way to do it. Murder is also illegal. People still murder. I don't see you on your soap box protesting the murder of actual living human beings in the world, only fetuses in the womb. You don't sound selfless crying genocide, you sound self-righteous. There are lots of things I don't agree with in this world, some are perfectly legal. I don't understand why people crusade for the rights of unborn fetuses while simultaneously trying to strip away the rights of grown women. You know you're doing that, right? You are stating not only does a 19.6-week old fetus (the latest PP will do abortion btw, not 25 weeks) have rights, but those rights are MORE IMPORTANT than mine? There are endless real problems in the real world we live in, which for the most part we are all happy to ignore. Why create a problem because a right that has already been fought for and established doesn't fit into your ideological dream world? There should not even be a debate on this subject anymore. Laws are not religions to follow. If you don't agree with the law but still want to live in America, tough shit. The bottom line here, is that some crazy ******* shot up Planned Parenthood, again. People died. And that's not ok, regardless of what you think about them performing legal abortions.

Matthew Ok one more and I’m done. This is pointless. I made a comment questioning the logic of s post and out cone the fangs and claws and emotional personal attacks.
1. I am not protesting, on a soapbox, unsympathetic to murders of all kinds, or trying to be 'righteous' or selfless. I’m not 'crying genocide' simply staying that the mass murder of infants is genocide. It is. I am not ok with that and will not bow down to silly hateful attacks. If you want to fight over semantics call Webster.
2. I never said women just want to murder a child that doesn't fit her plan I said they ARE just murdering a child who doesn't fit their plan. People deceive themselves in a manner of ways to justify the horrible reality of what they are doing.
3. You’re saying because laws are not 100% effective they are pointless? What about murder, rape and pedophilia laws? Should we throw those out as well?
4. I never said anything about embryos or conception. No one here has offered any opinion as when life starts. I'm saying if the baby has a heartbeat, can kick and respond to external stimulus, especially if it can live outside the womb it is obviously an infant, and to kill it is murder of the worst kind. At what percentage of chance of survival do you think it's ok to dash its brains out and box it up for retail?
4. When a baby is executed, they must remove all scraps of its carcass or it will kill the mother as it’s a FOREIGN body. It is not her body. It is a life inside her. She is a host or an incubator. Your so called rights do not allow you to execute children and infringe on is right to live.
5. it’s got nothing to do with religion, residence, or idyllic dream world, it’s about the morality of killing babies. I don’t care if the debate doesn't suit your worldview, to retain any morality we have left this must stop.
6. I never condoned or partook in any violent actions against PP. However, those who died were victims not heroes.
7. This is pointless, the problem is the foundation is off. Anything built on your pseudo-intellectual quasi-moral relativism that can be changed by the latest online article or group chant will not stand, or let alone produce anything of substantial moral value. Unless the foundation is based on concrete morality it will all disintegrate into depravity.

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

If you have partaken in this slaughter you are guilty. But we all are. There is still forgiveness and salvation available for you to be found in Christ.

If you worship a god that is claimed to have committed numerous mass genocide events, I find it kind of laughable that you are out trying to save unwanted fetuses.

I would think you would be accustomed to atrocities and I don't find the removal of unwanted cells anywhere near as horrible as a global flood or killing all the first born in Egypt etc...

Perhaps your focus would be better served if directed at wanted fetuses rather than the unwanted ones? You wouldn't come across as hypocritical anyways.

I can't help but shake my head when you mention genocide or the killing of babies. You cannot make up for all the murder your god did in your holy book by taking some stand about how you care so much about unwanted fetuses. You by definition are trying to make people care about something they don't want (wanted fetuses being aborted for health reasons and such not included obviously).

Either way, a fetus just doesn't have the 'value' that an actual baby has. You can find a fetus as valuable as YOU would like, but I don't know why you feel justified trying to project your feelings on to others.

Are you passionate about not allowing people to depict Mohammed in drawings? What if a Muslim is very passionate about this? Should they be able to project their passion on to you, or do you feel that you should be able to determine what you find important and not? Consider that some people are not confused or persuaded by the fact that you use inaccurate emotional language to try to make your point about these unwanted fetuses and blastocysts.

[Bust Nak]

1. I am not protesting, on a soapbox, unsympathetic to murders of all kinds, or trying to be 'righteous' or selfless. I’m not 'crying genocide' simply staying that the mass murder of infants is genocide. It is. I am not ok with that and will not bow down to silly hateful attacks. If you want to fight over semantics call Webster.

Ok, lets not fight over semantics then. If abortion is genocide, then I am ok with allowing some forms of genocide. Now what? Bottom line is you choose the term genocide to get an emotional response.

2. I never said women just want to murder a child that doesn't fit her plan I said they ARE just murdering a child who doesn't fit their plan. People deceive themselves in a manner of ways to justify the horrible reality of what they are doing.

We don't make law based on what is or isn't horrible to an individual. Legalise abortion is a good thing and beneficial to society, therefore it should stay/become legal. That's all there is to it.

3. You’re saying because laws are not 100% effective they are pointless? What about murder, rape and pedophilia laws? Should we throw those out as well?

That's a matter of degree. Can you at least agree that if a law is 0% effective, they are effectively pointless?

4. I never said anything about embryos or conception. No one here has offered any opinion as when life starts. I'm saying if the baby has a heartbeat, can kick and respond to external stimulus, especially if it can live outside the womb it is obviously an infant, and to kill it is murder of the worst kind.

Same point as 1. Appeal to emotion is a fallacy. If abortion is murder of the worse kind, then I am some forms of murders are actually good. Lose the emotive parts and what are you left with?

At what percentage of chance of survival do you think it's ok to dash its brains out and box it up for retail?

Don't know exactly, but I hear up to 24 weeks is a good indicator.

4. When a baby is executed, they must remove all scraps of its carcass or it will kill the mother as it’s a FOREIGN body. It is not her body. It is a life inside her. She is a host or an incubator. Your so called rights do not allow you to execute children and infringe on is right to live.

Sure it does, that's exactly what legalised abortion means - woman has the right to execute some children and infringe on some children's right to live. Again with the emotive language, remove the emotive aspects and your point is lost.

5. it’s got nothing to do with religion, residence, or idyllic dream world, it’s about the morality of killing babies. I don’t care if the debate doesn't suit your worldview, to retain any morality we have left this must stop.

You say that but why exactly would we care if the debate doesn't suit your worldview? Elective abortion is legal in many country, the non elective kind is pretty much universal the world over. The wider debate has already been won. We only need to maintain the status quo, and it's up to you to change minds. Calling others baby murders, posting bloody body parts, appealing to God aren't going to do it.

6. I never condoned or partook in any violent actions against PP. However, those who died were victims not heroes.

Granted.

7. This is pointless, the problem is the foundation is off. Anything built on your pseudo-intellectual quasi-moral relativism that can be changed by the latest online article or group chant will not stand, or let alone produce anything of substantial moral value. Unless the foundation is based on concrete morality it will all disintegrate into depravity.

Opinion differs on that, what you see as disintegration into depravity, I see as continual improvement on the moral. Improvements by definition requires change.

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

If you have partaken in this slaughter you are guilty. But we all are. There is still forgiveness and salvation available for you to be found in Christ.

I thought you said it’s got nothing to do with religion?