Abortion not allowed

[Mister Agenda]

I know I foetus can't make choices but this doesn't mean that the human it will become shouldn't be allowed a choice.

The reason for me opposing it in the absence of my religion is that I don't think it is moral preventing people from living.

By that logic, it is immoral not to have as many children as you possibly can. Every human not conceived is a potential human who never had a chance.

I know, under law the Holocaust was legal bit she thinks it is wrong, under law abortion is legal but I think it is wrong,so what is your problem with me being against abortion.

Do you get that we all think killing Jews for being Jews is wrong, and we all agree on that? So it's not very mysterious why we argue against your position that we disagree with, is it?

And it's not like you were minding your own business when we jumped out and demanded you tell us what you think about abortion. You entered the discussion freely and of your own will.

I don't care when a human becomes a human I just don't like it when people are prevented from living.

Do you think laws should be based on what you don't like?

---

No they are not okay at all, just ignore what I was saying are you capable of doing that?

I'm pretty sure we're all capable of ignoring what you say, but some of us choose not to do so.

Or maybe you need to calm down a little in order to type what you really mean to say.

---

Okay so why are you still asking questions.

They're still trying to understand you're reasoning. And incidentally, help you understand your reasoning. Since they've not communicated any desire to give up the discussion, why should they not still be asking questions, other than giving up on you answering them?

BTW, I'm starting to like you. Some of your responses are clever or unexptected. And you've got staying power.

---

Regarding the OP. I think standing by the rights of the unborn child is a noble cause, though I disagree with imposing full-term pregnancies upon mothers who are determined to follow-through with infanticide. Live and let kill, I say.

Infanticide has a definition you know. It's not a synonym for abortion. Substituting misleading words indicates an agenda other than honest discourse.

---

I have I have said I believe that everyone deserves a fair and equal chance, I have said I believe abortion is murder as you are preventing someone from living. How are these not arguements. I have said at 24 weeks a baby can survive birth.

What you've said has some implications.

If everyone deserves a fair and equal chance, we have a moral obligation to produce as many children as possible. You have not addressed this issue. Are you saying that only people who have been conceived deserve a fair and equal chance? If so, what is your moral reasoning for denying a fair and equal chance to people who have not been conceived yet?

Murder is unlawful killing of a human being by a human being. Leaving the legal issue aside for a moment, you acknowledge that a fetus is not yet a human being, so how can killing one be murder?

If you had a gun in your hand, would you shoot a man to keep him from killing a five-year old child? If you had a gun in your hand, would you shoot a doctor to keep her from aborting a fetus if you knew you would never be caught? If you would behave differently in those scenarios, why so?

---

By definition, abortion is not infanticide.

Ok, very well. I'll call it what it is then. Murder. Iknow, I know, I know... "It's not murder because it's not a Human!" Well isn't that tidy? And yet, it's considered a double homicide if someone kills a woman who is pregnant at ANY term.

It's properly feticide, and it SHOULD be illegal to kill a woman's fetus without her consent, not least because it involves invasively assaulting her. Though many countries and a dozen states in the USA don't raise it to the level of homicide.

Hm. Acceptable for the woman to choose to have the fetus aborted, not acceptable for someone to do it without her consent. Acceptable for the woman to choose to carry the fetus to term, not acceptable for someone to force her to do it without her consent. Strangely consistent, don't you think?

---

Okay, I believe that anything in any stage of human development from conception to death is human.

We all believe that, too. But is it a human being from conception?

---

There is a big difference between a part of yourself and an entire oher human.

Your ability to understand this indicates that you should be able to understand our position.

---

You've misconstrued my question. It's sincere and it stands on its own. If Chas and I have differing definitions of what a 'being' is (and I suspect that we do) then the terms must first be defined before conversation can proceed. It's a logical truth.

It's also a logical truth that there's no earthly reason why you can't advance your own definition first.

---

Since people can't read words through their pre-determined filter of projection, and prefer instead to argue, I will define what I consider to be a "being" so as to eliminate any confusion from my end. A "being" according to my experience is any living thing that comes into 'being'. Since a human embryo has, come into being, and is made from Human DNA, it is therefore, according to my experience, a Human being.

I can see why you hesitated to advance your definition now. In order to generate moral equivalency between a fetus and a human being, you use a definition that makes all living things, beings. And followed to its logical conclusion, makes a human tissue culture a human being with a right not to be terminated.

Have you heard of HeLa cellls? They are a genetically human microorganism originating from a particular person's cancer that have proliferated on their own and are usually killed as a contaminant when discovered. Do they have a right to life, too? If not, why not? By your definition, HeLa cells are a human being.

---

It is only a misunderstanding because you keep avoiding the matter of a brain and nervous system. There is no human being without those.

I know you've been taught that. I understand.

Condescending, much? And if you can understand a point, you should be able to address it.

---

Again, we Humans have been told that we are not the sum of our bodies and vice-versa. These types of questions are designed to illicit a pre-determined response, or at least one that mostly agrees with the origin of its impetus. You and I may as well be speaking different languages, never seeking to learn that of the other, thus rendering our conversation fruitless, and at times frustrating.

Since you are aware of this, never seeking to learn the language of the other is clearly a conscious choice on your part.

---

My predetermined conclusions? Projecting much? My argument is based on reason, logic and evidence while yours lacks all three.

(bold added)

Clearly, you've pre-determined that my answers should contain these elements. I'm not projecting, I'm perceptive.

---

Well then maybe you should just stop talking, how about that? You obviously aren't going to be swayed by anything.

That is always the response. "Shut up because we disagree."

I'm learning the atheist trick of surround, ridicule, and then silence. Very tidy system, I must say. Extremely pathetic, but tidy none the less.

Are you sure you don't misunderstand us because you don't understand 'our language'? Because you sound awfully sure for someone who doesn't get our language.

But good catch on that uniquely atheist trait, because in other forums the majority bow out so the minority visitor only has to deal with one person.

I'm just saying, because it would be very extremely pathetic to ascribe that behavior to atheists if it's just how the medium works.

---

You are both obnoxious and misguided. Now please go away and let us actually discuss the subject.

Insults and excusing me from the room - classic. This is a discussion board, and all opinions are welcome. Shall I begin bashing you now because I disagree with you?

You seem to be implying that you've hesitated to bash previously. If so, your reluctance to bash has not been detectable.

---

How many times have I sworn at, or directly insulted a member here in this discussion? None, is the answer. I find it telling that atheists feel the need to resort to name calling and fits, given that they are so logically superior to someone who is capable of self control.

Are you one of those moral idiots who think they are being courteous as long as they avoid the use of certain words?

---

This is a discussion forum, if you don't want your opinions to be challenged then don't fucking express them.

Challenge me all you like. But do remain civil, or I fear you've already lost your argument.

Oh Oh! I hope that didn't sound condescending - I may be unwittingly exposing myself to that trend being amid you all.

That ship sailed a long time ago

Guys, I'm closing this thread

Go home

They need theists to exist. It's all they have.

Without theists, those of us inclined to debate would have to find other things to debate about. How would we possibly survive?

[Mister Agenda]

Yea actually I would prefer it if you responded with nuh uh because it is better than swearing at me and calling me a monster, but to be honest no one has provide factual information all you are doing is questioning me.

Whoa, I am apalled to hear someone called you a monster. You're just a very naughty boy!

Here's is why you're getting so many questions. When asked what makes something a human being, your answer explained what makes something human. It was an answer, but not to the question that was asked. Your answer applied equally to a person's appendix as a fetus, so it's not really much help, is it? You don't come off as daft enough to really believe that something being genetically human is enough to make it a human being. So you seem to be holding something back. My guess is that you can't come up with a reasonable definition of human being that includes a week-old fetus, and you're afraid if you acknowledge that, you won't have a leg left to stand on regarding the matter beyond 'I don't like it'.

---

You are one of the very small group of people that hasn't sworn at me , thatnk you.

Are you seriously maintaining that the majority of people whom you've interacted with here have sworn at you?

---

I have given so many definations of what a human is stop asking for them.

NOT WHAT A HUMAN IS! WHAT A HUMAN BEING IS!

[Minimalist]

You don't need to have facts to believe in something

Yeah...you and assholes like you are walking proof of that!

[Mister Agenda]

I have given so many definations of what a human is stop asking for them.

No you bloody well haven't, again you are just lying. Now give us your definition of what a human is.

This is how I want it, I want you to write it like this:

I think a human is: _________
Or
The definition of a human is:________

I think the term 'human' confuses him because it can be an adjective. Maybe we should go with 'person'.

---

They were relevent at the time.

I'm afraid they weren't. Only a minority of acts of intercourse result in pregnancy, rape or not. We're not talking about the the majority of women who do not get pregnant when they are raped (though it's a worthy topic in other contexts). We're talking about the ones who DO get pregnant.

---

I never knew that so many people were eager to kill their unborn child.

Though if you actually HAVE had a majority of people here swear at you, it would be no wonder with comments like this.

---

His position that a fertilised egg is a human is quite solidly grounded. That is the consensus amongst scientists too. Is the beginning of the human life cycle quite apart from the rest of the process inside and outside of the mother's womb. So it's not only rational, but publicly accepted by medical professionals.

Yes, we all agree that it's human and alive. We were talking to a teenage boy and I was willing to give him some slack on being confused in thinking what's being asked is what makes something living human tissue. You're old enough to know that what we want to know is what he thinks makes something a human being, a person.

On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.

If Esquire had argued that God is wrong for taking the lives of fetuses, you might have a point. I'm pretty sure he was talking about taking the lives of human infants. Wrong for humans to do, wrong for God to do. What double standard?

If murder is the illegal taking of life, then most abortions aren't murder in the eyes of the the law. The morality of the act can always be considered, no matter what the legal position, and that's mostly a decision owned by the patents, being the only ones in a position to know.

Agreed.

---

It's not a fact, she is mistaken.

There's actually a bit in the early version about not assisting in abortions.

[Chas]

Humanity is the sticking point. Personhood is clear in my mind not to include pre birth human beings, and is irrelevant to this discussion. From conception the human being is very much alive and nothing at all or in any way comparable to a toe nail, a dead person or any other ridiculous example you have for us esq. Your entire argument against the possible morality of Gods act to take human life at any point is that it is somehow illegal. Just because human life is sacrosanct, in your view, for no other reason than it being human life. On the other hand, when it comes to terminating pre birth human life, suddenly tables are turned, and human life is now expendable without need to involve moral judgement. I'm afraid I call hypocrite.

So the magic point for personhood is birth? What about the day before birth? Or the day before that?

[C4RM5]

You don't need to have facts to believe in something

Yeah...you and assholes like you are walking proof of that!

And you are walking prove of how much atheists care for others.

[Esquilax]

Yeah...you and assholes like you are walking proof of that!

And you are walking prove of how much atheists care for others.

You keep right on with those unthinking generalizations, they totally make you seem more rational!

Meanwhile, I volunteer as a tutor, teaching people to read and write. What charity work are you involved in?

[C4RM5]

I am just saying that I was being generalised, so don't get angry

[fr0d0]

His position that a fertilised egg is a human is quite solidly grounded. That is the consensus amongst scientists too. Is the beginning of the human life cycle quite apart from the rest of the process inside and outside of the mother's womb. So it's not only rational, but publicly accepted by medical professionals.

Yes, we all agree that it's human and alive. We were talking to a teenage boy and I was willing to give him some slack on being confused in thinking what's being asked is what makes something living human tissue. You're old enough to know that what we want to know is what he thinks makes something a human being, a person.

No. There's a distinction to be made between human being and person. Personhood draws in all sorts of other considerations, which is a deliberate attempt to muddy the discussion. That is: sentience, self awareness. Conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. A human is created at that point.

On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.

If Esquire had argued that God is wrong for taking the lives of fetuses, you might have a point. I'm pretty sure he was talking about taking the lives of human infants. Wrong for humans to do, wrong for God to do. What double standard?

Mothers with unborn babies that were both killed isn't immoral? I guess Esq is on Gods side in that judgement then.
Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says. It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life. Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life? Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?
I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.

[DramaQueen]

Carm, have you ever read a physiology or biology textbook?