Abortion is evil? WHY?

Excellent post ! Thank you.

 

If I remember correctly...you don't see a problem with newborns being disposed of either. Am I wrong on that? They are't really conscous right? Let me know.

But that's what I remember from previous posts...and if people can't explain to you why its not right to destroy a newborn....we can't win this argument either.

 

That is not the point at all, my point is that different people have different morals, we each approach morals in a different way. I did not say that "some" people believe nothing is moral or immoral.

Our morals are forever changing with each new generation and it is always the past generation that fight to maintain the moral standards they adhered to, however that does not make the new definition wrong.

I maintain that there are no inherent morals and no morals are either bad or good, it all depends on the way the individual perceives what is right and wrong.

 

Sounds like a menstrual period not an abortion and doesn't show anywhere that godsy is against abortion.

 

I didn't know poisoned water causes menstruation? So that's how that works. Thank you.

I have so much to learn about the vagina it's not even funny.

 

Oh, that godstuff is confusing:

"""may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry """


so "the Lord" WANTS women to micarry. But where does it say he doesn't approve of abortion?

 

In the hearts and minds of his blessed sheep...somewhere.

 

So like most of that religious stuff, some self-righteous jerks decided they KNEW what god wanted and they decided abortion was bad...

 

No, the Lord tells them personally...he sends text messages now. You can also follow him on Twitter.

 

It's all here: http://www.sideofreason.com/facts-about-abortion-that-everyone-needs-to-know/

Please read it all along with the info in the sources before arguing with the facts and logic presented.

 

I do NOT text or Tweet or twitter or giggle....no wonder I'm an atheist

 

That's a totally meaningless point of view. It has no standard by which to judge it. Some societies may adhere to a "morality" that condones punishing women because they've had the gall to drive an automobile. That society may believe that's moral, but those living in decent cultures should call such behavior what it is! It's despicable, and should be condemned. According to your belief, if America's next generation believes women should not be allowed to drive, you'd be ok with it. Unless our society takes a firm and uncompromising stand on certain moral principles, our culture is vulnerable to its own destruction.

 

Whether I am ok with it is irrelevant, the fact remains that morals do and have changed throughout generations, and each of the previous generations have fought to protect what they see as the 'right' morals to have, that is based in the culture they have been brought up in and each generation has failed to maintain a set of morals that future generations do not agree with.
Slavery was considered moral in its time, attitudes changed and so did the moral viewpoint about slavery to the point now where it is considered immoral. Future generations won't care what your moral viewpoint was, theirs will adhere to the current viewpoint, just as you do now and just as your parents, grand-parents etc did for their time.

 

But if the Right-winger is truly concerned about the rights of the fetus,
then what about the right of the fetus to not be born.
You can't chose one right without automatically denying the other.
And who is to say that the mother's choice is not influenced by the unborn fetus or God?

I am hesitant to say this because I know there exists a horde anxiously waiting to scream insanity at anything unfamiliar.
But since I am already lower that whale dung, what have I got to lose?

I have memories of events from before I was 4 years old. I believe they are of actual events because I could not possibly have had the experience at that age to create such ideas. For me, before I was 4 years of age I had access to another existence.
I was free to roam between life in this world and someplace else. I preferred the someplace else. But sometime before the age of 4, I remember being told I could not come back to the someplace else. I know it was before the age of 4, because on my fourth Birthday party I recall looking at my little brother with envy. He would have only been 1 year old at that time. I envied him because I knew in my mind, without any doubt, that he was still able to access the other place.

I know that there are exceptionally creative folks at this site.
Can any of you just for a moment imagine being a new soul faced with the possibility of being born when you see where you are headed?

Thank you for your time.

 

Sorry for the delayed response. Been away for a month.

1) I am talking about the single cell at conception. In the later stages of pregnancy I would agree that a Fetus would qualify as a living human. Early stages no.

Fetuses are not "human beings" (noun) by definition

Being a human entity that is alive and growing does no make it homosapien.

In order to get into the club Homo sapiens and entity needs to have certain traits and a single human cell, or a group of human cells, does not qualify.

You are confused on what I said. A coroner will state that a human is not living without significant brain function and he would, in general, have little ability to comment on what a homosapien is as a coroner is not an expert in this by training. (Biology is the domain science)

You have provided no links or support for your claim that a zygote is a member of the species of homosapiens.

Here is what a PH.D Biologist and Prof at the U of Miami has to say on the issue.

The Prof then goes to give an explanation of why. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm

Nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with science. It was Bush that changed the definition of personhood and he did it based on religious beliefs and did not consult legitimate science.

 

Those very same statements could also have been used by some German citizens to justify the actions of Hitler and the Nazis.

 

And at that time they would have been right.

Comparing historical events to modern events is absurd, historical events took place in a time where morals and opinions were different, where people actually thought differently .. morals morph and change to suit the current generation and way of thinking, only those who live in the past are eager to cling to it, and as I have already shown you the comparison to Nazi's can just as easily be used for pro-lifers.

 

At least the pro lifers did not dehumanize anybody by using stupid justifications and stupid arguments.

 

So you don't think that taking away a persons right to body autonomy is dehumanizing them . .Hitler would have been proud of you.

(See what I mean about using Godwins Law, it works both ways)

Give me some examples of stupid justifications and arguments and provide evidence to support why they are stupid, or are you just making stupid comments?

 

Hitler would have been very proud of this racist jerk that's called Margaret Sanger.

Anyways, here's some very interesting pictures about the hypocrisy of pro choicers that I have just recently found.

 

Margaret Sanger was pro-life, you do know that don't you.

From her book "Women and the new race" Chapter 2 - http://www.bartleby.com/1013/2.html

Chapter 10 - http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html

In a speech given to the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, she said the following:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=303355.xml

I do love this myth that pro-lifers keep on about as far as Sanger and abortion is concerned, it never fails to amuse me that they use it as some sort of wedge when in reality it just devalues their own position .. Sanger was certainly a racist, but as far as abortion is concerned she sided 100% with pro-lifers and would have fitted perfectly into their ranks.

 

This thread is just so freaking stupid. You may as well just state this.

"WHY WAS THE HOLOCAUST SO EVIL"?

 

So even though the fact remains that better contraception and more freely available contraception actually decreases abortions you count that as hypocrisy .. umm ok

BTW, the picture you posted is using selective reasoning.

 

Pro-choicers are not demanding nor even requesting that the government pay for birth control and abortions. They do, for the most part, believe that birth control should be covered by the insurance that women earn and is a part of the compensation they receive for working. Oh, and BTW, plan B, otherwise known as emergency contraception is CONTRACEPTION, not an abortion drug. Planned Parenthood distributes birth control to women on a sliding fee basis for women who have no insurance. That is a good buy for government, since every $1 spent on family planning saves $4 in future spending on welfare.

 

Here are a couple of my favorite ones;



And this one, number 42 of the pro-life mantra