Total Ban on Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.

yee yee boy

Active Member
While @yee yee boy is wrong on many things, he is not wrong on this. The "pro-choice" (a label that is completely disingenuous, by the way) crowd has absolutely no basis in fact on which to claim that abortion is not killing a baby. They like to claim that if abortions are made illegal again then women will sometimes die from illegal abortions, but they ignore (or worse yet, try to argue away) the fact that every single time there is an abortion, a baby dies. The only possible moral justification for an abortion is if the mother's life (not "mental health") is in direct danger and the only way to save it is an abortion. Rape and incest are situations where there may be grounds for compromise, too, but to allow abortions as a "choice" that someone can make just because they now decide it is inconvenient to have a child should be morally repugnant to anyone with a heart and a brain.
thank u
 

Alskah

Active Member
Yes, we have all expressed our views on this topic, ad nauseam. Maybe he should stick to the other thread he created on the subject and "wright" about his thoughts there...
 

zeus987

Member
The only time I'd be ok with abortion if it's a absolute medical necessity. Not a "maybe needed" or a your child might have a disability but an absolute if it doesn't happen you're both dead. Once the child reaches the second trimester a c-section would save both mother and child in minutes in the case of a medical complication while an abortion could take upto a week. In a life threatening medical complication you'd have more like an hr to save them - abortions not an option for most life threatening medical complications. That's not even taking into account abortion puts the mothers life in danger anyway depending on how far along the pregnancy.

I don't agree rape victims should be allowed to abort just because they were raped. There's no logical reason for a raped person to abort. Convenience isn't a valid reason. Everyone makes stupid decisions when they're hurting doesn't mean everyone around them has to go along with it. Aborting isn't going to help the mother cope or help them get over what happened. Aside from the trauma of losing a child, what gives anyone the right to continue the chain of victims just because they were hurt? It has to stop somewhere and it should stop at the first victim not the second.

I get I can't force people to share my beliefs and that's ok. However I can't agree that outlawing it is worse then keeping it legal. If it's legal then it's an option. When somethings an option it's too easy to go to it during times when it's not needed or necessary



Except abortion in itself is chopping off peoples heads. That's how abortions are done. They take the child apart piece by piece.

I hope you never give birth to a child with an extreme disability. They will take your whole life. You will either have to work forever, to keep them in a home, or you will give up your entire life for the child, a child that will never even know you are there, or ever love you. No one has a right to force someone to do this, what about the parents right to a life?? No one ever thinks of the parent in these cases. I have seen people do it, and god bless them, BUT I would never force another person to go through such a thing, if there was a way they could avoid it. Not that most would take the abortion option. I believe that abortion is murder, but I would never force my beliefs upon others. This is what you are doing.

I do not believe in hurting the many, to stop the few bad. Most people are good and will choose the right option for themselves, not use it when it is not necessary. Have more faith in the goodness in people.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
The problem with saying abortion is murder, and then saying to allow it is to force our beliefs on them is you’ve then got a double standard for murder. If it’s “forcing our beliefs” for one type of murder to say it’s not ok, what gives us the right for any type of murder to enact justice?


The only reason you’ve given for allowing abortion (which you agreed is murder) is to give the parents a way out of looking after their child (because of extreme disability).

Since when did disability determine whether a person has the right to live?

What about the reverse? The children with disabled parents? Should they be allowed the same convenience of offing their parents once old enough to self sustain?

I agree it’s a terrible hardship to have to look after a disabled person and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Twofold as that’d also mean the disabled person didn’t get to live a healthy life. But rather then ok’ing the murder of the vulnerable, why not seek them out to help them?
 

AdrianHarbinger

New Member
Personally, I don't think the abortion thing will be settled until two realities are accepted by all:

1. Human life begins at conception (a scientific fact at this point).

2. There exists a hierarchy of rights which states that a woman's rights supersede those of the unborn child. This hierarchy of rights gives a woman permission to terminate her pregnancy up to a point to be determined by law.

The result of this policy gives women access to safe abortions, but it doesn't allow them to pretend they aren't ending a human life for their own benefit. That will be for the woman to decide, but I suspect that decision will be substantially more difficult -- as it should be.

I have no doubt that proponents of abortion would fight this all the way because it is that definition of life that causes them the most trouble. They want women to be able to take such a radical course without any guilt, but I just don't think that's realistic. I think clarifying the science and making women accept the realities of their "choice" will cause the number of abortions to fall, which is what everyone claims is their goal in the end. This policy would show who is sincere and who is not.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
The problem with saying abortion is murder, and then saying to allow it is to force our beliefs on them is you’ve then got a double standard for murder. If it’s “forcing our beliefs” for one type of murder to say it’s not ok, what gives us the right for any type of murder to enact justice?


The only reason you’ve given for allowing abortion (which you agreed is murder) is to give the parents a way out of looking after their child (because of extreme disability).

Since when did disability determine whether a person has the right to live?

What about the reverse? The children with disabled parents? Should they be allowed the same convenience of offing their parents once old enough to self sustain?

I agree it’s a terrible hardship to have to look after a disabled person and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Twofold as that’d also mean the disabled person didn’t get to live a healthy life. But rather then ok’ing the murder of the vulnerable, why not seek them out to help them?
How do you ensure they are helped rather than passed through a notoriously abusive system? It seems like the idea is to help them, but the reality is that the concern ends with the pregnancy. Then it's just another hot-potato... I mean child.

*
I don't disagree, but I'm wondering how far this concern goes. It's easy to be moral, but when the effort is required to ensure it, what then?
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
a child that will never even know you are there, or ever love you.
Because, in all seriousness, I've met disabled children (autism, Down syndrome, etc.), and they love their parents dearly. They follow their orders, even something as simple as "follow me", and yet they're both really happy. The disabled child shows that they are actually very happy, especially when meeting new people. The parents show that they are trying their best to raise the child as a normal child. Even if that won't be 100% possible due to their disability, they work hard and teach the child how to cooperate. In the end, everyone is happy. I would definitely not have been in favor if they decided to terminate the pregnancy. The mere thought saddens me greatly.

Exodus 21:22, 23 state,
"If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life,"
When it says "fatality", it could refer to either the woman or the unborn child. However, these verses focus more on the unborn baby.
What I highlighted in red mentions about what to do if the woman gives birth prematurely. You might already know that those who are born prematurely end up having "defects" later on in life, almost as if they were disabled. However, I don't see anything saying that it is okay to abort the baby if that were to happen.
What I put in bold text specifically mentions what to do if the child died. But notice that it doesn't mention if the woman was hurt either by accident or on purpose. That shows that either way...
Abortion is not okay.

However, I do agree with @Emberguard in the case that it is only okay during a complication where life is at stake. Life! It is valuable, and only the couple can decide what to do if that were to happen.
 

plinker2

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
As this is a really touchy subject, I believe that women who have this done will have to settle this in the next life. However as a Christian I DO NOT want my tax money used in any way for this. WIC program is good. But my tax money can be used for other things than to terminate a life, no matter what the situation.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
As this is a really touchy subject, I believe that women who have this done will have to settle this in the next life. However as a Christian I DO NOT want my tax money used in any way for this. WIC program is good. But my tax money can be used for other things than to terminate a life, no matter what the situation.
Well...I would prefer my tax money not be used to bomb people in other countries. I hope there is headway in this regard in the future...
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't think the abortion thing will be settled until two realities are accepted by all:

1. Human life begins at conception (a scientific fact at this point).

2. There exists a hierarchy of rights which states that a woman's rights supersede those of the unborn child. This hierarchy of rights gives a woman permission to terminate her pregnancy up to a point to be determined by law.

The result of this policy gives women access to safe abortions, but it doesn't allow them to pretend they aren't ending a human life for their own benefit. That will be for the woman to decide, but I suspect that decision will be substantially more difficult -- as it should be.

I have no doubt that proponents of abortion would fight this all the way because it is that definition of life that causes them the most trouble. They want women to be able to take such a radical course without any guilt, but I just don't think that's realistic. I think clarifying the science and making women accept the realities of their "choice" will cause the number of abortions to fall, which is what everyone claims is their goal in the end. This policy would show who is sincere and who is not.
I find this kind of snobbish. Who says a woman doesn't understand what she is doing, or understand the consequences when they ask for an abortion? No one is under the illusion that they are not terminating a life when they are having an abortion- least of all the woman getting the abortion. I think you're mistaking the terminology used in the political debate for the actual thoughts and feelings of the person getting an abortion.

I'm always on the fence because, yes, killing a child is bad, but I'm not exactly sure that forcing the mother to have it is "good" either. And then I'm not even sure what "not allowing them to pretend they aren't ending a human life" means, but it sounds like a bunch of religious ass***** jumping in her face every two seconds trying their best to make her feel as horrible as possible. Basically the community taking the liberty to ride their high horse and totally invade someone else's private space. What I'm saying is that the attitude that a person must be made aware of and held accountable for their abortion gives me the shivers. Like so neo-theocratic re-education camp.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
No one is under the illusion that they are not terminating a life when they are having an abortion- least of all the woman getting the abortion.
I disagree. Pro abortion arguments hinge on the contention that it's not life until after birth. And it's highly speculative to claim that the "official" view of the pro abortion arguments is not shared by those who take advantage of the opportunity to have an abortion. And if that view isn't shared by those who get an abortion, then both they and those who defend abortion are being highly dishonest.
I'm always on the fence because, yes, killing a child is bad, but I'm not exactly sure that forcing the mother to have it is "good" either.
While technically true, the difference in degree is immense. Killing a child is immeasurably worse.
What I'm saying is that the attitude that a person must be made aware of and held accountable for their abortion gives me the shivers.
Well then, maybe we should quit trying and convicting those who murder anyone. I mean, honestly there's no real difference between killing someone before or after they're born. It's always for the convenience or benefit of the one doing the killing, without any concern for the one being killed.
 

plinker2

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
Well...I would prefer my tax money not be used to bomb people in other countries. I hope there is headway in this regard in the future...
War is killing people and breaking things. That is understood when you put on a uniform, or take up arms against another country. It has been that way forever. You have to live with that too. Why do you think LE gets paid admin. leave when they have to shoot someone? They HAVE to undergo 6 weeks (at least) with a shrink to make sure their mind isn't messed up from what they had to do.
Abortion is a totally different thing.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
I disagree. Pro abortion arguments hinge on the contention that it's not life until after birth. And it's highly speculative to claim that the "official" view of the pro abortion arguments is not shared by those who take advantage of the opportunity to have an abortion. And if that view isn't shared by those who get an abortion, then both they and those who defend abortion are being highly dishonest.
Welcome to the world of 'I want to win a legal case'. Just like a job resume, people will over and understate things to seal the deal. I don't think everyone is completely aware of the consequences, though, but I do not think very many people do not believe they are killing a child by getting an abortion.

While technically true, the difference in degree is immense. Killing a child is immeasurably worse.
Edit: I'm not sure it is. I think sentimentality makes it worse, but to force the mother to commit the act and the outcome of this act may be worse than killing the baby, but these are all maybe's. I guess it is best to let the kid live and then be passed through the system. The mother puts up with a year of pregnancy and the child still gets to live. That seems like a compromise.

Well then, maybe we should quit trying and convicting those who murder anyone. I mean, honestly there's no real difference between killing someone before or after they're born. It's always for the convenience or benefit of the one doing the killing, without any concern for the one being killed.
I think there is a difference... One life is coming out of another. In some way, that life is a part of the former and subject to the former. At least that would be my determination. The moment the actual separation takes place, I would say the life has become in and of itself it's own legal identity. But this is just my interpretation...
 
Last edited:

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
War is killing people and breaking things. That is understood when you put on a uniform, or take up arms against another country. It has been that way forever. You have to live with that too. Why do you think LE gets paid admin. leave when they have to shoot someone? They HAVE to undergo 6 weeks (at least) with a shrink to make sure their mind isn't messed up from what they had to do.
Abortion is a totally different thing.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. I'm saying that my tax money is spent on things I do not personally like and I hope that there is a future where this will stop and I can decide where and when to spend my money. I believe such an act would be far more powerful than any ballot vote I cast.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
How do you ensure they are helped rather than passed through a notoriously abusive system? It seems like the idea is to help them, but the reality is that the concern ends with the pregnancy. Then it's just another hot-potato... I mean child.

*
I don't disagree, but I'm wondering how far this concern goes. It's easy to be moral, but when the effort is required to ensure it, what then?
Who said anything about waiting on the system?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.