each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Prestor John]

To commit an abortion, in the sense usually meant, the intentional killing of an unborn human being ("person"), in the USA is a capital crime. Statutes passed by the Congress of the US, the legislatures of the states or of any subordinate body purporting to grant permission to anyone to kill human beings not yet born are invalid as forbidden by the US Constitution. Article I, sections 9 & 10.
The legislators who pass statutes, the president and governors who approve them, and the judges who uphold them are in rebellion against the law of the land, violators of their oaths of office.
Abortion has been forbidden by the law of Moses, by Judaism and by Christianity from the earliest times of both. Other non-Abrahamic religions either prohibit or strongly discourage abortion.
Until Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, abortion in the common sense was prohibited. There were few prosecutions as murder due to the near-impossibility of proof. The murdered victim’s remains had been destroyed. The only witnesses were participants in the crime. Abortions were perpetrated in secret or under the guise of medical therapy ("therapeutic abortion").
Roe v. Wade was a set-up to head off advances in medical technology that make it possible to prosecute some abortions. Roe is bad law on several counts:
• No actual controversy - the principals Norma McCorvey and a hypothetical abortionist) were not being prosecuted
• No actual controversy - by the time Roe reached the Supreme Court, McCorvey was no longer pregnant, if she ever was
• No actual controversy - McCorvey and her lawyers lied to the courts at each level; McCorvey was not seeking an abortion
McCorvey later repented of her evil and petitioned the Court for a reconsideration in which she admitted under oath that she had lied from the beginning. The Court ignored her.
Even pro-abortion lawyers, legal scholars and activists have denounced Roe as bad law, for they see it as a weak foundation for the legalization of elective abortion. The Court strained to ignore the US Constitution and thousands of years of the Judeo-Christian tradition and laws, thousands of years of legal precedent and principles, instead grasping at straws of paganism that approved of abortion, infanticide, abandonment of infants to wild animals, forced prostitution, forcible rape of captured girls and women, and many other abominable customs.
Abortion, infanticide and abandonment are founded upon the concept of "property in man" (human beings). Slavery is founded upon the concept of property in the labor of another, which is less reprehensible as the slave's life is not supposed to be the slaveowner's, only his labor.
Government is founded for the primary purpose of the protection of the lives of those within its jurisdiction. The greatest degree of protection is to be provided to those least able to defend themselves from aggression.
Pro-abortion apologists occasionally bring up citizenship, which is accorded at birth to those natural born. Citizenship is irrelevant, a red herring, as no one professes that those in country who are not citizens, whether guests, permanent residents or trespassers, may be murdered at will with impunity. The Frenchman, the Chinese, the Brazilian who is within the jurisdiction of the United States or of the states is protected by law against murder, robbery, rape and in his/her property.

*Clap*
*Clap*
*Clap* *Clap*
*Clap* *Clap* *Clap*
(Stands up)
*Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap*
(Roar of applause)

 

[whirlingmerc]

Well, actually, he did get her consent. See Luke 1:26-38

Gabriel Predicts Jesus’ Birth
26 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was deeply troubled by this statement, wondering what kind of greeting this could be. 30 Then the angel told her:

Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found favor with God.
31 Now listen:
You will conceive and give birth to a son,
and you will call His name Jesus.
32 He will be great
and will be called the Son of the Most High,
and the Lord God will give Him
the throne of His father David.
33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever,
and His kingdom will have no end.

34 Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

35 The angel replied to her:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore, the holy One to be born
will be called the Son of God.

36 And consider your relative Elizabeth—even she has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called childless. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”

38 “I am the Lord’s slave,” said Mary. “May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel left her.​

Yes and in Psalm 116, "I am your servant the son of your maidservant"
Mary is the maidservant and mother of the Messiah

 

[Araceli Cianna]

I read 50% of babies are miscarried by the end of the first trimester. So that's quite a high number. Personally I think if nature had intended for all fetuses to survive the percentage of spontaneous abortion wouldn't be so high (making intended abortions before 12 weeks fine to me by that reasoning... however I don't support cutterage, I think it's barbaric).

 

[whirlingmerc]

I read 50% of babies are miscarried by the end of the first trimester. So that's quite a high number. Personally I think if nature had intended for all fetuses to survive the percentage of spontaneous abortion wouldn't be so high (making intended abortions before 12 weeks fine to me by that reasoning... however I don't support cutterage, I think it's barbaric).

On the other hand 100% of people die and the death rate is 1 out of 1. That doesn't mean we help it along.

But... loss of children through miscarriages was seen as something God promised help avoid following obedience in the 'none of these diseases section' in the Torah and in the Psalms 'children are a gift of God' not a burden to avoid

 

[Araceli Cianna]

On the other hand 100% of people die and the death rate is 1 out of 1. That doesn't mean we help it along.

But... loss of children through miscarriages was seen as something God promised help avoid following obedience in the 'none of these diseases section' in the Torah and in the Psalms 'children are a gift of God' not a burden to avoid

True. But a fetus can't even feel anything before 12 weeks. It doesn't have pain receptors (which I suppose cancels out the idea of cutterage being barbaric, but still...) and I doubt in that case it even has a soul. I believe in most cases the soul doesn't come into the body until at least halfway through pregnancy, but that is outside of the realm of science.

There are also plenty reasons why a woman wouldn't want a child. For example, a child born of rape, or a disabled fetus, in my own case I have CFS and am hardly in a position to look after anyone else, barely have the energy to look after myself. I'm sure you've heard all these reasons before. But in fact children born to mothers who don't want them are a huge burden and can cause them huge pain, distress, and trauma. It is better to bring a life into this world that will be loved than one that will be neglected.

As for God... I think he outside the realm of natural birth (I'm leaning towards deism these days..)

 

[McBell]

To commit an abortion, in the sense usually meant, the intentional killing of an unborn human being ("person"), in the USA is a capital crime. Statutes passed by the Congress of the US, the legislatures of the states or of any subordinate body purporting to grant permission to anyone to kill human beings not yet born are invalid as forbidden by the US Constitution. Article I, sections 9 & 10.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
​

Care to try again?

​

 

[McBell]

*Clap*
*Clap*
*Clap* *Clap*
*Clap* *Clap* *Clap*
(Stands up)
*Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap* *Clap*
(Roar of applause)

Please see post #86

 

[Prestor John]

Usually a medical choice.

Nope. “Usually” a choice of convenience.

Which God? Not the God of the bible, who offers abortion as a way to "prove" a wife has been unfaithful (of course, if she's considered guilty of adultery, she can then be stoned, and Paranoid Husband can then find himself a new 10 year old to wed).

You keep forgetting that you do not know enough about the Bible to comment on it.

We have been over this many times.

Where did God offer abortions to prove the faithfulness of a woman?

Where did God say that it was alright to marry a ten-year old?

What you lack is biblical, historical, legal, and biological precedent to say such a thing.

Yet she has common sense.

Reaching into a womb and severing the neck of an unborn child is killing that child.

If you need a heart transplant, do others get to decide for you (assuming you've made your wishes known or identified a Power of Attorney)? Can I just walk into a hospital and decide your care? What if I decide that you accepting a new heart (real or artificial) takes away a vital part of you? What if I say the bible says your soul is essentially in your heart, so you will become soulless if it's removed? Does it matter that it will save your life if you will burn in hell (or something, because your soul was removed, so I don't know how that works in the afterlife)? Should I tell Jesus he was wrong for saying that if a body part causes you to sin, you should cut it out and throw it away, for it was better to be missing some parts and go to heaven or intact and go to hell?

There you go talking about the Bible as if you understand it again. Oh you! When will you learn?

As I understand it, doctors are the ones who tell you if you need a heart transplant or not.

You can’t just demand a new heart because you want one.

What you do with your life is your business, but once the life of a defenseless unborn child gets involved, you’re dang right people are going to say something.

You think everyone should just turn a blind-eye to child abuse? No one should come in a make decisions to help the child you hurt or neglect?

When Jesus spoke about plucking out your eye or cutting off your hand, He was speaking metaphorically of moral/spiritual things.

If you read the entire chapter, which include the Beattitudes and other moral teachings, it becomes clear that Jesus is telling people to remove from themselves those things that cause them to sin.

These are not physical things, like an eye or a hand.

Indeed. You don't even have to do anything actively. When your immune system is killing bacteria, you are killing without moving a muscle. (And eating veggies is killing the veggies, LOL.)

I don’t know how you can compare an unborn child to “bacteria” or “vegetables”. That is definitely in bad taste. Especially to those who love and cherish children.

Or have a soul.

However, your argument is irrelevant because, as we all know, if a fertilized egg is left alone and the conditions are right, it will grow into a human baby.

A fertilized egg is not a “bacteria” that a woman’s body starts killing. A woman’s body naturally nurtures and preserves it.

But since it's not getting their information from the Word of God ...

Come on. Stop talking about things you don’t understand. It’s getting old.

Abortion, actually, is talked about in the scriptures.

One examples comes from the Book of Jasher, which records that one of the reasons that God flooded the Earth in the days of Noah was because many women were taking “draughts” that killed their unborn children and left them barren.

The Lord remarked that He was sorrowful over the inhabitants of the Earth because they “hated their own blood”.

That's like saying an OP is claiming if you drink bleach you will not get infections and the rest of us is claiming it's false and someone whines that the OP "is being dog-piled on".

Not at all. Everyone knows that drinking bleach is harmful to the body.

Not everyone hates and wants to destroy unborn children.

It is not comparable at all.

This is like the thread about blood transfusions: yes, the person him or herself have a right to do what they want with THEIR care, but we should not sanction bad science to make ignorant people happy.

There are actually perfectly viable volume replacements besides blood. Like saline, dextran, Haemaccel or Hetastarch.

Considering that there are potential risks involved with receiving someone else’s blood, it would be completely reasonable for anyone, even the irreligious, to refuse a blood transfusion.

From the same book that says you can kill bratty kids.

Where in the Bible does it claim that a woman can abort her child or that the unborn child is “bratty”?

Also, since you are talking about things you don’t understand again, why not consider that the Israelites never actually killed a child who disobeyed their parents.

At least, I have never heard of any case of that actually happening.

Many of the things that you and others go up in arms about concerning the Law of Moses, like the killing of bratty kids, never actually happened. Yet, the Lord placed them in the Law to teach the Israelites how He valued certain things, such as the obedience and gratitude a child should have for his/her parents.

Well, Christianity notes it DID happen to this ONE chick about 2k years ago.

Yeah, a classic argument made by leftists. How does referencing an outlier prove anything?

The idea that only one woman has ever or will ever have a baby magically appear in her womb helps you argument how?

This belief is completely irrelevant.

That only one of the participants has to suffer through?

I never claimed that having a baby was any kind of “punishment”. Why would you assume that I believed that?

Why are you complaining about biology? All human beings have come into this world the same way. Through a woman.

If you consider this to be unfair, then you can take that issue up with the entire friggin universe.

The burden of child bearing being placed on the woman is not grounds for killing someone.

I don’t care if the father left. I don’t care if you are having a bad day. None of that justifies killing another person.

You choosing the wrong guy to have irresponsible sex with is not the unborn baby’s fault.

Exactly. It's not like Gabriel asked Mary about her wanting to get knocked up. He was just like, "See you in 9 months, hon."

The Luke account clearly records Mary agreeing to bear the Son of God.

You love proving how much you don't know. It's kinda cute actually.

Per the bible, if a child dishonors the parents, the child can be killed.

Per the Law of Moses.

Can you reference how many times this happened?

You really should stop talking about Bible stuff. It makes you look foolish.

 

[Prestor John]

Please see post #86

Please look up the definition of "Bill of Attainder".

 

[McBell]

Please look up the definition of "Bill of Attainder".

Now all you need to do is explain how abortion is punishment.

I understand the desperation of the "pro-life" side, but that is a stretch even for them.

My point is the fact that the articles referenced do not say what he claims they say.

I assume he cited the wrong articles.
Though it is possible he is just desperately flounding.

 

[Prestor John]

Now all you need to do is explain how abortion is punishment.

I understand the desperation of the "pro-life" side, but that is a stretch even for them.

My point is the fact that the articles referenced do not say what he claims they say.

I assume he cited the wrong articles.
Though it is possible he is just desperately flounding.

It would be very easy to articulate how killing an unborn child can be viewed as punishing that child.

You don't think execution is a form of punishment?

 

[McBell]

It would be very easy to articulate how killing an unborn child can be viewed as punishing that child.

You don't think execution is a form of punishment?

Except all attempts thus far have failed...

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Each year many unborn babies are aborted and each year many babies are born to parents who cannot afford to care for them or do not care about them. Many die from starvation and disease and cruelty. Which is the bigger question of morality? Have children that will be abused and die of neglect or prevent unwanted children?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How can you compare a potential human life to toilet bowl bacteria?

How about we just kill you and spare an unborn child. Maybe that child will grow up with respect for human life, I mean, we obviously failed that with you.

First off, embryos, like bacteria, are balls of cells and, like bacteria, are not legally recognised as persons. While both are alive, neither are entitled to legal rights. Second, it's either a potential human life or it's a human life; it can't be both at the same time. Third, I get that you're not being serious but this is still a rather important flaw in 'pro-life' "logic". 'We should kill you if you don't respect potential human life like we do!'

Aw, a classic strategy used by leftists. Just reference an outlier! That proves it! (note sarcasm)

Good example of 'pro-life' attitude here - you're so concerned about life that you don't care about the mother.

Referring to an outlier isn't a method unique to 'leftists' either, by the way

What percentage of abortions are performed because the woman's life is in jeopardy?

I don't know. Is there a cut-off point below which you'd consider this argument invalid?

I am willing to claim that saving the life of the potential mother warrants the possibility of aborting the unborn child, however, does that mean that you'd be willing to ban all other abortions?

Well I'm not willing to ban any abortions as it is not my right to decide what someone else should do with their body. This is something you need to square with yourself.

Or, are you only referencing this outlier to support the idea that all abortions should be legal for any reason?

Yes.

If you are then it is not very convincing.

Not to someone who has already decided living humans deserve less bodily autonomy than cadavers. Unless of course that isn't the case, and you also think the government should have the right to pillage corpses for organs, stem cells & the like.

Come on bro.

You talk about "life-saving abortions" as if those are the only ones that take place and the only ones that pro-lifers take issue with.

What a red herring.

They're not the only abortions but they are the ones 'pro-lifers' seem strangely willing to ban in their rush to deny women the right to bodily autonomy. And who's to say a pregnancy won't develop complications that threaten the health or even life of the mother further down the line. It's hardly a risk-free business.

Those who can so easily equate human life

At the start of your post it was potential human life. Please pick one.

with toilet bowl bacteria are the same ones who committed the Holocaust and supported slavery.

I'm invoking Godwin's Law because I realise how absurd it is to equate a ball of cells with a ball of cells... ¬__¬ And the anti-choice brigade are the ones mandating that women lose the right to decide what takes place inside their body - a right granted to dead people with respect to their cadavers; a right that is critical to a person having individual freedom which is not granted to a slave. That's a far more apt comparison to slavery than your appeal. You literally want women to have less rights than dead people.

The moment we enter into, "It's in my body, therefore I can claim if it is human or not", we are just repeating the same mistakes of the past.

"He is on my property, so I get to decide if he is free or not" or "He is in my country, so I get to decide if he can continue to live or not"

A specious analogy; individual citizens do not have the legal right to determine whether their fellow citizens live or die even on their property. Not in the UK, at any rate. I appreciate it may be different wherever you are.

Don't get me wrong Scotsman. I love you to death.

That's a little creepy; you don't even know me.

So I would never want to kill you.

But I find defending the defenseless a huge priority in my life.

Ironically by making women defenceless in the face of their own mistakes and the poor judgement of others.

 

[GerryAllwin]

Words do not define us. We define words. Calling a human being "fetus" during an ill-defined portion of gestation does not magically transform a human being into a non-human-being.

Major "pro-life," "anti-abortion" organizations are actually pro-choice yet work to harass abortionists. When now-president Trump was asked whether if abortion was illegal if the aborting mothers should be punished, he responded that if abortion was illegal then the aborting women should receive some kind of punishment, the major "pro-life/anti-abortion" organizations let out the loudest howl.
From my over two decades in pro-life activity, this one of the most baffling stances that I encounter. The very person who seeks out and hires an abortionist to kill her child is seen as a victim of the evil abortionist. Yet it is almost unknown force abortionists to kidnap mothers, drag them into the clinics kicking and screaming, and perpetrate abortions on them.
Even Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun, author of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton, saw this inconsistency in the anti-abortion position.

 

[GerryAllwin]

And 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage.

"Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.
source​

And FWIW:

Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.
source: ibid​

.

What's the point? Spontaneous abortion is not homicide. It is caused by "natire," biology, an accident. Elective abortion is a premeditated homicide.
There is a difference between being killed by a heart attack and being killed by an armed robber.

 

[GerryAllwin]

And 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage.

"Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.
source​

And FWIW:

Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.
source: ibid​

.

What's the point? Spontaneous abortion is not homicide. It is caused by "natire," biology, an accident. Elective abortion is a premeditated homicide.
There is a difference between being killed by a heart attack and being killed by an armed robber.

 

[GerryAllwin]

You are welcome to view it as such and do not yourself practice or recommend abortion. To convince others, specifically for making abortions legal, you need a few arguments.
Plenty of long time mothers are equally convinced of the rightness of mothers to have access to abortion services. I know several.

I don't practice slavery. I also recommend that others not enslave anyone.
Plenty of long time slaveowners were convinced of the rightness of others to buy and keep slaves. Many who didn't themselves own even one slave thought it all right for others to own slaves.
Abortion is founded in the same concept as chattel slavery: that one human being can own another human being and do with that other as they please.
Actually in the USA murdering slaves was unlawful.

 

[GerryAllwin]

First off, embryos, like bacteria, are balls of cells and, like bacteria, are not legally recognised as persons. While both are alive, neither are entitled to legal rights. Second, it's either a potential human life or it's a human life; it can't be both at the same time. Third, I get that you're not being serious but this is still a rather important flaw in 'pro-life' "logic". 'We should kill you if you don't respect potential human life like we do!'




Good example of 'pro-life' attitude here - you're so concerned about life that you don't care about the mother.

Referring to an outlier isn't a method unique to 'leftists' either, by the way




I don't know. Is there a cut-off point below which you'd consider this argument invalid?




Well I'm not willing to ban any abortions as it is not my right to decide what someone else should do with their body. This is something you need to square with yourself.




Yes.




Not to someone who has already decided living humans deserve less bodily autonomy than cadavers. Unless of course that isn't the case, and you also think the government should have the right to pillage corpses for organs, stem cells & the like.




They're not the only abortions but they are the ones 'pro-lifers' seem strangely willing to ban in their rush to deny women the right to bodily autonomy. And who's to say a pregnancy won't develop complications that threaten the health or even life of the mother further down the line. It's hardly a risk-free business.




At the start of your post it was potential human life. Please pick one.




I'm invoking Godwin's Law because I realise how absurd it is to equate a ball of cells with a ball of cells... ¬__¬ And the anti-choice brigade are the ones mandating that women lose the right to decide what takes place inside their body - a right granted to dead people with respect to their cadavers; a right that is critical to a person having individual freedom which is not granted to a slave. That's a far more apt comparison to slavery than your appeal. You literally want women to have less rights than dead people.




A specious analogy; individual citizens do not have the legal right to determine whether their fellow citizens live or die even on their property. Not in the UK, at any rate. I appreciate it may be different wherever you are.




That's a little creepy; you don't even know me.




Ironically by making women defenceless in the face of their own mistakes and the poor judgement of others.

Yeah, I kinda know what you mean. I have found myself defenseless in the face of my own mistakes and the poor judgment of others. Though, I haven't defended myself by killing anyone.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

What's the point? Spontaneous abortion is not homicide. It is caused by "natire," biology, an accident. Elective abortion is a premeditated homicide.
There is a difference between being killed by a heart attack and being killed by an armed robber.

No it isn't. Homicide does not apply here as, like murder, it is a legal term for the premeditated killing of a person. An embryo or a foetus is not legally a person.

Also, an armed robber is not generally invited into someone's home, nor are they continually allowed to stay there. A foetus' presence in a woman's body requires continual consent which can be withdrawn at any time as per the notion of bodily autonomy.