Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Abortion: is it murder?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 12>
Poll Question: What i,s abortion to your point of view?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
67 [49.63%]
68 [50.37%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
morticia View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Editor

Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2077
  Quote morticia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Abortion: is it murder?
    Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 20:02
Infidel wrote: "Well, I'm sorry for the men you know Morticia."

You don't know me or the men I know well enough to make such a statement and I take personal offense to it.

You have rendered your opinion regarding an abortion issue and I respect that. I too have a right to an opinion and I have rendered same. I will leave it at that.

Have a good evening!
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
Back to Top
Infidel View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
  Quote Infidel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 20:33

I'm sorry but you also assumed what I would do or say in case my girfriend/wife became pregnant, and you assumed that I wouldn't back her up. As far as I'm concerned you don't know me too so I could've taken personal offense to it but I didn't.

In fact, I only expressed my thoughts in the same way you expressed yours, Morticia. That is called reciprocity.



Edited by Infidel
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 20:53
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival


If a human embryo counts as a person, then why dont they include them in the national census? If its a person, how come parents say "we have 2 children and one on the way" instead of saying "we have 3 children"?

that, and people should start celebrating their day of conception instead of their birthday

Also it is inconsistent that many people who call themselves pro-life do support the death penalty or wars.

Furthermore instead of allying with the UK to attack Iraq the USA should have allied with Saddam to attack the UK. Saddam outlawed abortion, while abortion is legal in the UK. So according to the anti-abortionists claim that abortion is murder, the British government is many times more genocidal than Saddam.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 21:20
What was saddams reason? Was he trying to strengthen his numbers for a stronger army? Anyways....I see now weve reverted to sayings.....well, some with 2 children and 1 on the way say that they have 2.5 kids. just my two smartass cents
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 21:54
Originally posted by arch.buff

Anyways....I see now weve reverted to sayings.....well, some with 2 children and 1 on the way say that they have 2.5 kids. just my two smartass cents


I was simply trying to show how hypocritical and inconsistant anti-abortionist argument is. Read the rest of what i wrote.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 23:13

Oh I did, and I respect your opinion even if I dont agree with it. i was just trying to be a lil humorous. But in my opinion abortion is killing. Any action that destroys the action of living is.....killing.

Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 01:49
Originally posted by arch.buff

I respect your opinion even if I dont agree with it


Likewise.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
jfmff View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote jfmff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 06:58
The argument of the baby not counting to the census is very funy indeed. Once that was said I imideatly changed my opinion in favor of abortion!! Couldn't be more impertinent.

Statisticaly speaking the question is about what religious people say about abortion vs what non religous (or not so religious) persons say about abortion. Since no one has the proof that god (or other forms of spirituality) exists  neither  no one has the proof that it doesn't exist, the arguments are based on something that is impossible to decide, thus, we will never get to a conclusion about this just discussing it. The only way is trough experience. As I said earlier, ask a few adopted/lived in abortion centres people if they would prefer to be dead. If even one says no, abortion should be prohibited.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 08:16
Originally posted by jfmff

The argument of the baby not counting to the census is very funy indeed. Once that was said I imideatly changed my opinion in favor of abortion!! Couldn't be more impertinent.

Statisticaly speaking the question is about what religious people say about abortion vs what non religous (or not so religious) persons say about abortion. Since no one has the proof that god (or other forms of spirituality) exists  neither  no one has the proof that it doesn't exist, the arguments are based on something that is impossible to decide, thus, we will never get to a conclusion about this just discussing it. The only way is trough experience. As I said earlier, ask a few adopted/lived in abortion centres people if they would prefer to be dead. If even one says no, abortion should be prohibited.


That's a stupid argument: most living people whichever their circumstances prefer to be alive even if just by mere instinct.

The question is not what the would-be human thinks but what the already existing human, that is: the mother, does. You are using fallcious arguments comparing a non-existent being as it would be if it ever existed with an already existing person, and using the non-existent rights, the non-existent thoughts, the non-existent words of a non-existent person to destroy the life of an existing person (the pregnant woman) whose opinion you are ignoring. Yet the bunch of cells is inside that woman and is going to burden her life for about 20 or 30 years, which is a lot.

I think that the simple fact that many women decide to abort (never an easy decission) is enough to allow the practice, that anyhow would exist even if forbidden. I find extremely patronizing that a bunch of ministers, priests and mullahs - all men - pretend to say to a woman what to do with her body. That is indeed  impertinent and, furthermore, criminal.

If we should implement your theories about the would-be humans, no pollution and no menstruation should ever take place: all reproductive cells should be strictly used to produce children without exception or waste. Every male and female teenager should regularly practice sex daily without protection in order to prevent the slightest lost of life, wouldn't it be that some imaginary non-existent would-be person came out from a parallel universe to cry: "Why didn't you had sex with Emily/Jack the 24th of July of 2005? You have caused my non-existence".

Or worse: "Why did you have sex with Emily/Jack and not with Bertha/Steve? You have caused my non-existence (but allowed that of Thomas/Liz)".

This is as it seems: a complete absurdity.

Not to mention venereals.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 14:22

The question is not what the would-be human thinks but what the already existing human, that is: the mother, does. You are using fallcious arguments comparing a non-existent being as it would be if it ever existed with an already existing person, and using the non-existent rights, the non-existent thoughts, the non-existent words of a non-existent person to destroy the life of an existing person (the pregnant woman) whose opinion you are ignoring.

First: non-existent, come on now, the being is dwelling inside the woman, that more than accounts for its existence.

>>I know you were refering to it's status as a person, i was just nitpicking, i just dislike the term non-existent for an obviously existing endoparasite.

Yet the bunch of cells is inside that woman and is going to burden her life for about 20 or 30 years, which is a lot.

There are other alternatives to raising the child, such as adoption, which burdens the women for only 8-9 months.


I think that the simple fact that many women decide to abort (never an easy decission) is enough to allow the practice, that anyhow would exist even if forbidden. I find extremely patronizing that a bunch of ministers, priests and mullahs - all men - pretend to say to a woman what to do with her body. That is indeed  impertinent and, furthermore, criminal.

Using that same logic, i believe since many men decide to rape we should allow this practice, and in fact provide government sponsered centers to allow these men to commit that act.

Also, there are many women who don't believe in abortion as well and not all ministers and priests are men.

-------

In a perfect world, i believe that non-public institutions that wish to allow abortions should. However, i believe that alternatives should be discussed prior to the act, possibly ultrasound images shown to the woman as well. If the woman decides to go through with it after that, it is up to her and God.

In the US, i believe that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, as this is not a federal matter, the constitution does not state that it is the federal governments position to define a human life, and therefore it is up to the individual states to determine that.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 15:55
Originally posted by JanusRook

In the US, i believe that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, as this is not a federal matter, the constitution does not state that it is the federal governments position to define a human life, and therefore it is up to the individual states to determine that.

You realize that what's going to happen is that liberal states such as Massachussets, New York and California will allow abortion, while states such as Alabama, Tenessee and Wyoming will ban it. As a result, you'll have women from Alabama, Tenessee, etc. going to Massachussets and California to get abortions.

If you outlaw it completely in all the states, what's going to happen is that abortions will still go on, but in secret. They will be performed by individuals which may or may not have the proper medical expertise, in unsanitary conditions, and many women will die as a result of botched operations. This is one factor that most anti-abortionists don't take into account. There was such a situation in Romania in the 1980's, when the communist government outlawed abortions. In 10 years, around 10,000 women died as a result of botched abortions. This for a country of 22 million. So in the States, you would have over ten thousand women a year dying of this. And guess what? They probably wouldn't be able to stop it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that before Roe vs Wade, this was exactly the situation in the United States.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 16:20

You realize that what's going to happen is that liberal states such as Massachussets, New York and California will allow abortion, while states such as Alabama, Tenessee and Wyoming will ban it. As a result, you'll have women from Alabama, Tenessee, etc. going to Massachussets and California to get abortions.

Yes, i fully realize that that will happen.

They probably wouldn't be able to stop it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that before Roe vs Wade, this was exactly the situation in the United States.

Yes, that was the situation before Roe vs. Wade, and if Roe vs. Wade is overturned then that situation will occur again. The health of the woman is not the issue in the case. It is a side effect, now i'm not arguing a terrible state of women's health will occur, however it is the right thing to do as far as the law is concerned, unless you make a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

Also to make an analogy, drug use is illegal in the US, therefore, without regulation anyone can make any variety of drugs in a shed. These can be laced with poisonous chemicals that are cheaper, quicker, etc. that are far more dangerous to a persons health. Much like unregulated abortions, unregulated drugs (or unregulated anything) is dangerous to the consumer. Therefore, under that logic drugs should be legalized and regulated (which i'm not all together against).

However as this shows, laws must be implemented, thus giving a gov't seal of approval of the practice. However, in the constitution it says that the federal gov't is not allowed to have anything to do with anything that isn't reserved to it. Therefore, according to the constitution it is up to the states to decide things like that, and the constitution being the supreme law of the land determines that.

Roe vs. Wade is just unconstitutional, and the justices that voted on it the first time, went far out of their position, they are the judiciary meaning they interpret the law, not create the laws and standards of a generation. They were swayed by public opinion and mob mentality, something the founding fathers tried so hard to eradicate.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 16:33
Originally posted by Infidel

Listen, we could go on and on like this. The fact is you insist saying that adoption is just favouring the rich people because they can adopt the baby. Excuse me, but this is just sheer nonsense.


You're arguing the anti-abortionist should set up a fund. That is not the point. I could seamingly argue that because some one is against death penalty, then he or she sould set up a fund to support and feed the inmates deviated from the green mile! Social solidarity can and must improve. Many of these couples really lack the resources to raise a child. But this doesn't mean we'd saction the child being killed or unborn. Of course it's the mother's body and the mother's life and career but it is also a defenseles human being life that is at stake.


Next thing you know, there will start preemptive abortions.



First, societies do have a fund to support and feed inmates, it is call a government budget.

Second, you keep dodging hard reality by sticking to the idealization that every conception should come to term.

Forcing women to have unwanted children when they cannot afford them puts the child in danger, the mother in danger, and the rest of the mother's family in danger. One child can mean financial ruin for families living in the U.S.

When anti-abortionists say that mothers should give up their newborns for adoption, who are going to adopt them? Wealthy enough people who can afford to do it.

It is logical and clear. Anti-abortionists are, in fact and tacitly, advocating for poor women to supply babies for wealthier people. This is the cruel reality: anti-abortionists promote anti-family solutions.

As you yourself stated, you have no interest in actually supporting living children. Even though they are innocent babies, you don't think that their lives are worth enough to actually give money to support them.

And this is the point: if anti-abortionists are so hot to save fetuses, help those mothers to support them.

So, since cute babies are not worth as much as inmantes in your view, what is your real motivation for being againt abortion then?


Back to Top
Infidel View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
  Quote Infidel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 16:44

Originally posted by Maju

Yet the bunch of cells is inside that woman and is going to burden her life for about 20 or 30 years, which is a lot.

How many mothers do you really think that consider their children as burdens? Please. Not the mention the fantasized 20/30 slave years you keep on talking about.

I think that the simple fact that many women decide to abort (never an easy decission) is enough to allow the practice.

Excuse me?  Sure. Also, the simple fact that many people kill one another (sometime as tough decision) should make it enough to allow muder.

I find extremely patronizing that a bunch of ministers, priests and mullahs - all men - pretend to say to a woman what to do with her body. That is indeed  impertinent and, furthermore, criminal.

You keep on missing the point. It's not what the woman does with her body (it's hers anyway), it's what she does with the body inside her body (which isn't hers). And this is not a mere men vs. women issue, like you seem to enjoy to simply put it. There are women against abortion.


This is as it seems: a complete absurdity

I couldn't agree with you more.

An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 16:51
Originally posted by Decebal

Originally posted by JanusRook


In the US, i believe that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, as this is not a federal matter, the constitution does not state that it is the federal governments position to define a human life, and therefore it is up to the individual states to determine that.



You realize that what's going to happen is that liberal states such as Massachussets, New York and California will allow abortion, while states such as Alabama, Tenessee and Wyoming will ban it. As a result, you'll have women from Alabama, Tenessee, etc. going to Massachussets and California to get abortions.


If you outlaw it completely in all the states, what's going to happen is that abortions will still go on, but in secret. They will be performed by individuals which may or may not have the proper medical expertise, in unsanitary conditions, and many women will die as a result of botched operations. This is one factor that most anti-abortionists don't take into account. There was such a situation in Romania in the 1980's, when the communist government outlawed abortions. In 10 years, around 10,000 women died as a result of botched abortions. This for a country of 22 million. So in the States, you would have over ten thousand women a year dying of this. And guess what? They probably wouldn't be able to stop it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that before Roe vs Wade, this was exactly the situation in the United States.



Only poor women will not be able to get abortions in other states. They are the ones who are victims of this.

I am sure that some callous person will make fun of my respect for the poor.

Let me remind you that the man in my avatar also defended the poor.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 16:58
I didn't think of the poor women. Thank you hugoestr. You're right: they will be the victims of this. And in the long run, if abortion is ever outlawed, we will most likely see an increase in crime, as a result of all those extra poor children growing up in tough neighborhoods. In fact, isn't that one of the main reasons why crime decreased in the US for the past 20 years?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Infidel View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
  Quote Infidel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 17:01

Originally posted by hugoestr

Second, you keep dodging hard reality by sticking to the idealization that every conception should come to term.

Not every conception does, actually. There are abortions out of natural causes. And, as I added before, when the mother's life is at stake or when there is serious malfunction and deficiencies in the fetus I think abortion should be allowed. So it's not an idealization 

When anti-abortionists say that mothers should give up their newborns for adoption, who are going to adopt them? Wealthy enough people who can afford to do it.

Your bias against wealthy people seems unexplainable. And you're forgetting the child, as usual.

It is logical and clear. Anti-abortionists are, in fact and tacitly, advocating for poor women to supply babies for wealthier people. This is the cruel reality: anti-abortionists promote anti-family solutions.

Idem 

As you yourself stated, you have no interest in actually supporting living children. Even though they are innocent babies, you don't think that their lives are worth enough to actually give money to support them.

You failed to understand. I said that societies should and could develop more solidarity towards the poor and the babies of those families who can't afford to have them. I'm not saying I wouldn't give money to help supporting them, what I said was that being against abortion doesn't mean I have to support them. Capisce?

And this is the point: if anti-abortionists are so hot to save fetuses, help those mothers to support them.

You keep on disregarding adoption as a valuable solution. I'm sorry for you. Go and ask someone adopted.

So, since cute babies are not worth as much as inmantes in your view, what is your real motivation for being againt abortion then?

I'm starting to believe you really just don't want to understand. 

An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Back to Top
jfmff View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote jfmff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 17:02
Helo Hugo.

I have come to a conclusion. You are just joking with us pretending to be a left wing fanatic. No one could possibly say things like that.

Good jokes though


Edited by jfmff
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 17:38

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by jfmff

The argument of the baby not counting to the census is very funy indeed. Once that was said I imideatly changed my opinion in favor of abortion!! Couldn't be more impertinent.

Statisticaly speaking the question is about what religious people say about abortion vs what non religous (or not so religious) persons say about abortion. Since no one has the proof that god (or other forms of spirituality) exists  neither  no one has the proof that it doesn't exist, the arguments are based on something that is impossible to decide, thus, we will never get to a conclusion about this just discussing it. The only way is trough experience. As I said earlier, ask a few adopted/lived in abortion centres people if they would prefer to be dead. If even one says no, abortion should be prohibited.


That's a stupid argument: most living people whichever their circumstances prefer to be alive even if just by mere instinct.

The question is not what the would-be human thinks but what the already existing human, that is: the mother, does. You are using fallcious arguments comparing a non-existent being as it would be if it ever existed with an already existing person, and using the non-existent rights, the non-existent thoughts, the non-existent words of a non-existent person to destroy the life of an existing person (the pregnant woman) whose opinion you are ignoring. Yet the bunch of cells is inside that woman and is going to burden her life for about 20 or 30 years, which is a lot.

I think that the simple fact that many women decide to abort (never an easy decission) is enough to allow the practice, that anyhow would exist even if forbidden. I find extremely patronizing that a bunch of ministers, priests and mullahs - all men - pretend to say to a woman what to do with her body. That is indeed  impertinent and, furthermore, criminal.

If we should implement your theories about the would-be humans, no pollution and no menstruation should ever take place: all reproductive cells should be strictly used to produce children without exception or waste. Every male and female teenager should regularly practice sex daily without protection in order to prevent the slightest lost of life, wouldn't it be that some imaginary non-existent would-be person came out from a parallel universe to cry: "Why didn't you had sex with Emily/Jack the 24th of July of 2005? You have caused my non-existence".

Or worse: "Why did you have sex with Emily/Jack and not with Bertha/Steve? You have caused my non-existence (but allowed that of Thomas/Liz)".

This is as it seems: a complete absurdity.

Not to mention venereals.

 

-You're missing it........you say "The non-existant human" but there in is the point....the process of life has started by aborting it you are KILLING it. Plain and simple, I couldnt sound it out any better. Now this is of course pertaining to the topic question, BUT if you agree that abortion is KILLING and you just agree that its an ok decision...than thats purely opinion, something I value of every member on this forum.

Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 17:45
Wow, just re-read my previous post and it sounded like it came off a bit harsh....I wasnt implying that any of you are ok with killikg, if that what you got from it
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.